Well, I hasten to warn you that you need to be already rich, for this to work. It has already worked for some alert rich investors. What they did was – they noted the soaring share prices of small nuclear reactor companies, a soaring that was accompanied by an awful lot of media hype.

And then they noted some salient facts about those companies – for example:

OKLO – has a market cap of $8 billion, and its shares jumped more than 12% on Aug. 25. Sounds great doesn’t it? BUT:

• OKLO had a net loss of $81.6 million in the second quarter this year.

• It went public through a SPAC (special purpose acquisition company) in 2025.

• It generates no commercial energy income today.

• Its first Small Modular Reactor (SMR), the Aurora Powerhouse, isn’t expected to enter commercial operation for years.

• Oklo is incurring tens of millions in operating losses annually.

• It is $78.6 million in debt, so interest and loan payments eat into its earnings.

• OKLO is still in discussions with the regulator NRC, regarding the fuel, high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, and other supply chain issues.

Similarly, stocks of both NuScale Power, and Nano Nuclear have soared over the past year. Yet both are making little or no money, and both have suffered operational losses over this year. NuScale is now facing a class action by investors who claim that the company misrepresented the prospects for small nuclear reactors.

So – what have the smart rich investors done? Basically, they’ve gambled on these stocks being over-priced, and soon to go down. Investment strategies are not my strong point, but it seems that short selling is one hedge fund strategy. So these clever investors, noting the unsustainable rise in share prices, borrow shares and soon sell them at the inflated price, and can buy them back later as the price plunges down.

So, it’s estimated that investors made over $2 Billion over the past months by short selling shares in these three small nuclear reactor companies – OKLO, NuScale, and Nano Nuclear.

The rage for investing in SMRs is still on, as the world is gripped by the mania for AI hyperscalers. (AI hyperscalers are companies investing grotesque amounts of money in building data centres world-wide)

Neither the hyperscalers nor the small reactor companies are actually making money at present. But the hype is all-consuming.

This is the prevailing hype:

The AI Boom Is Making Nuclear Power Bankable Again – America’s nuclear power landscape is undergoing a dramatic transformation, driven by the immense energy needs of artificial intelligence. Tech giants like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta are directly financing nuclear projects, committing billions to secure nearly 10 gigawatts of capacity… Almost everything tech companies are funding – Meta, Amazon, most of Google’s bets – is small modular reactors: compact designs.

Will AI kickstart a new age of nuclear power? – IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi believes that the nuclear industry is destined to be the energy partner of the AI revolution. “Only nuclear energy can meet the five needs of low-carbon power generation, round-the-clock reliability, ultra-high power density, grid stability and true scalability” …the IAEA is working closely with regulators and the industry to make them a viable proposition and we could soon be seeing large numbers of small reactors being deployed to meet the demand.

So – we have the Trumpian process in the USA, of the weakening of radiation and safety regulation of nuclear reactors, and of the government already funding 8 SMR companies.

With the claim that nuclear power combats climate change, with the accepted belief in the necessity for AI hyperscale, governments, academia, the corporate media, and the UN all promote this new marriage of nuclear and Big Tech. So – all the stars are aligned for the rise and rise of small nuclear reactors.

Incidentally, don’t look to the UN, the World Health Organisation (WHO) or anyone like that to cry foul. I think that most people have forgotten, if they ever knew it, but the 1959 agreement between the WHO and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) effectively prevents the WHO from criticising things nuclear. One important sentence – “Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement.”

In this time of vulnerability of nuclear sites, to war and terrorism, I wonder how Rafael Grossi, Director of the IAEA, reconciles his conflicting duties, that of promoting nuclear power and that of assuring of its safety.

But I digress. We are talking about money, and how to get rich through investing in small nuclear reactors. Well, that is still a goer. But perhaps you’d better be quick, as investment advisors are now dithering about the share price of commercial SMR companies, even though the Big Tech- SMR teams are apparently still booming.

However, the global nuclear lobby is now turning its attention to military microreactors, rather than commercial energy, so there’s hope for future stock market gains as governments splurge tax-payers money into companies in that area.

15 August 2026, https://theaimn.net/microreactors-the-next-big-little-nuclear-thing/

Forget about Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – they’re not cool anymore!

What the world needs now is MICROREACTORS – so saith the global nuclear lobby. And we know they must be right, because they’ve already explained how the world needs a NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE to solve climate change, energy shortage, world peace etc…

Now there are substantial differences between microreactors and small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), even though at first glance microreactors might seem to be just teeny weeny versions of SMRs. Whereas an SMR produces up to 300 MWe, a microreactor produces anything from 1 MWe up to 50MWe

There are fuel differences. SMRs can use LEU – Low Enriched Uranium or the more powerful HALEU – High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium. Microreactors can, in theory, use LEU fuel, but that could not work out to be economic. The fuel must be the more powerful HALEU – High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium. And in fact, most microreactor plans use the more complex TRISO Fuel (Tri-Structural Isotropic), in which the tiny kernels of HALEU are coated with multiple layers of ceramic and carbon. That makes TRISO very safe, but very expensive.

Really, the most important difference is in – Who Pays For Microreactors?

Well, you do, if you’re a tax-payer. The only economically viable way to fund microreactors is to make them military installations, government funded. SMRs are supposedly economically viable, and were touted to become a private enterprise success. That was until the NuSCale SMR financial fiasco.

The beloved ever-about -to-happen nuclear renaissance needs a new theme, and that new funding source. The old theme was ENERGY – the new theme is DEFENCE.

For quite a while now, it has been obvious, and indeed a boast of the nuclear lobby, that new small reactors would support the defence sector, and nuclear weaponry, by providing the trained staff that are so badly needed, as the old nuclear boffins retire.

But times have changed, and also the nuke lobby is getting desperate. With all the international political drama going on, obviously the top priority now is war. (Did I hear someone say, what about diplomacy, negotiation? Look, that’s time-consuming, takes high mental ability, and there’s no money in it) Yes, what we and the nuke industry need now is war preparation.

So the nuclear industry is regalvanised, with a spate of joyous media articles, mostly – worded like this one – Antares Raises $470M to Field Military-Focused Microreactors. Optimistic statements abound:

Power up: Antares and their nuclear startup frenemies moving so fast is good news for the Pentagon, which is where that 2028 number comes into play in a few places.

In May 2025, President Trump signed a series of executive orders to accelerate the Department of Energy’s Manhattan Project 2.0 – notably Executive Order 14299, “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security,” Then came Executive Order 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” – getting rid of, or watering down public safety, radiation and environmental standards. The full import of this has been documented by Kristen Thomason in her superb article – “If you’re already afraid, just wait until you hear about Manhattan Project 2.0”

A lot of hype about microreactor energy for data farms, with Silicon Valley tech billionaires all on board – and the craze is for so many “start-ups.”

I had every intention of going through all the hazards, impediments to these microreactors ever becoming a commercial reality. But guess what? OKLO, probably the leader of the pack, has done it for me. After the usual hypy article, glorifying their new microreactor, OKLO makes this revealing statement at the end:

“As a result of a number of known and unknown risks and uncertainties, the actual results or performance of Oklo may be materially different from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. The following important risk factors could affect Oklo’s future results and cause those results or other outcomes to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements: risks related to the development and deployment of Oklo’s powerhouses, fuel fabrication and fuel recycling facilities, and radioisotope production activities; the risk that Oklo is pursuing an emerging market with no commercial project operating and regulatory uncertainties; risks related to acquisitions, divestitures, or joint ventures we may engage in; the need for financing to construct plants, which remain subject to market, financial, political, and legal conditions; risks related to an inability to raise additional capital to support our business and sustain our growth on favorable terms; the effects of competition; risks related to accessing high-assay low-enriched uranium, plutonium, and other fuels (including recycled fuels) at acceptable costs and under acceptable timelines; risks related to our supply chain; risks related to power purchase agreements; risks related to human capital; risks related to our intellectual property; risks related to cybersecurity and data privacy; changes in applicable laws or regulations, including tariffs; the outcome of any government and regulatory proceedings and investigations and inquiries; and the other factors set forth in our documents we have filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).

The foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive.”

I was going to try and list all those factors – to throw some cold water on the microreactor parade – and that leading microreactor developer has done it for me!

As I tried to research all those factors to consider about microreactors, I made the discovery that amongst the pro nuclear experts themselves, there are the gold nuggets of the truth. Not only has OKLO raised those contentious questions, but in a lengthy video – Nick Touran, a nuclear engineer and manager at TerraPower, unearths the sobering realities of micro nuclear reactors:

It’s long – but he spells it all out, if you can take the time:

Chapters:

00:00 Visions for microreactors 03:49 Defining microreactors 11:56 The problem of radiation shielding 18:48 Original microreactor projects 24:29 Niche applications 30:32 The problem of neutron economy 40:08 The problem of fuel 53:03 The problem of operations and maintenance 1:00:17 The problem of commercialization 1:05:42 The problem of spent fuel 1:09:27 The problem of scaling 1:12:36 The problem of licensing.

7 August 2026, https://theaimn.net/the-trouble-with-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-smrs-theyre-not-small/

The big boasts for small nuclear reactors are that they are modular and they are small.

Modular – yes. They’re a sort of LEGO or IKEA thing – parts made in one place, then shipped to another place and assembled. (That process has its problems, too – but today I’m just focussing on the small aspect.)

A small modular reactor (SMR) is an emergent class of nuclear fission reactors with a rated electrical power of less than 300 megawatts (MWe) (Wikipedia) MWE (Megawatts electric) refers specifically to the amount of electrical power a system can produce. Large reactors generate over 700 MW(e). Microreactors range in capacity from 1 to 20 MWe.

So – now we have SMRs being touted as the great new source of electricity – a sort of vision of little nuclear reactors dotted in their many thousands all over the world

But that’s not really a practical plan. So – how about bundling a bunch of them together – so they can produce a large amount of electricity, and we can still call them a Small Modular Nuclear Power Plant?

Case study 1 – NuScale – the American experiment

The picture below is not on the Australian Independent Media site. I don’t want the AIM to get sued

The NuScale SMR is a pressurized water reactor (PWR) – a type of light-water nuclear reactor. In a PWR, water is used both as a neutron moderator and as coolant fluid for the reactor core. So it’s pretty much a small version of the “tried and tested” large nuclear reactors. This was the first SMR design to get Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing. The Department of Energy approved $1.35 billion to the project, over 10 years subject to appropriations.

In 2015 NuScale Power and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) planned a single plant, containing 12 “modules” – i.e. 12 SMRs, which would provide 924 MWe – same as a large nuclear reactor. so – no longer small. The estimated costs kept rising, reaching $9.3 Billion by 2023. So the plan, now named VOYGR, was changed from 12 modules to six. Even at 6 modules with 462 MWe- still a large project.

In November 2023 UAMPS officially terminated the CFPP agreement. The Idaho project would have been NuScale’s first commercial deployment. The project that was supposed to demonstrate SMR viability in the US was dead. NuScale took a $100M+ write-down. The cancellation sent shockwaves through the SMR industry. Investor interest, always poor, collapsed. In a class-action lawsuit filed Nov. 15, investors say NuScale “made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects.”

NuScale continues to push its VOYGR plan – to Romania, Poland, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and the Philippines. The company continues to burn cash with no revenue from reactor operations. The VOYGR design remains the only NRC-certified SMR.

Case study 2 – X-Energy ‘s MWe Xe-100 plant – the British experiment.

In September 2025, X-energy and Centrica signed a Joint Development Agreement for the UK’s first advanced nuclear fleet, targeting 6 GW nationwide with Hartlepool identified as the preferred first site for a 12-unit/960 MWe Xe-100 plant.

The Xe-100 is a 200MWt (75MWe) reactor. The Xe-100 SMR is a high temperature gas-cooled (HTGR) pebble bed modular reactor. “It uses tennis ball-sized pebbles made of thousands of TRISO micro-fuel particles which consist of fissile U-235 surrounded by pyrolytic graphite, which acts as the moderator – slowing down fast neutrons so they more efficiently split the U-235 nucleus.”

So this UK plan is different from the American pioneer project, Nuscale. It is using different fuel, – a Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor. This has been tried in the past as a large reactor, and was a failure. The Xe-100 has a new variant – TRISO (Tri-structural Isotropic particle fuel). Thousands of poppy seed-sized particles are combined into compact fuel forms. These tiny uranium kernels are encased in three layers of ceramic coating that’s needed to absorb the nasty byproducts that form during the atom-splitting process.

So, like the American NuScale project, this will be a world first.

Both projects were hugely touted as safe. And it’s true – they can’t melt down like a Chernobyl or Fukushima event. But at 462 MWe (the Utah project) and 960MWe (Hartlepool) they are both big plants, with the potential for accidents or terrorist attacks, including cyber-disruption, to release a large amount of ionising radiation to the surrounding area. Even within the nuclear hierarchy, there are anxieties about the safety of TRISO fuel. And TRISO discharges the largest volume of spent nuclear fuels waste in the industry.

The UTAH Nuscale project sank because it was becoming more and more expensive. Assisted by the government, it was still a private enterprise project, and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems balked at the cost.

The Hartlepool X Energy project is intended to become a successful private enterprise project, but it is strongly backed by the UK government’s Great British Energy – Nuclear with funding provided by its Future Nuclear Enabling Fund. However TRISO fuel is highly expensive to make, and with still uncertainties about its safety, it is not likely that this pioneer initiative for Hartlepool will really bring the wave of private investment that the UK government has been hoping for.

In both cases, these have been attempts to show the Western world that small modular nuclear reactors are a really big profitable thing – they will power the mighty data farms etc.

Community acceptance is the big bonus that the nuclear industry desperately needs

This is much less of a problem in totalitarian nations like Russia and China. Both countries have only one small nuclear reactor in operation, and in each case, it hasn’t been very successful. Both China and Russia are ramping up their nuclear weapons, and they don’t need to worry so much about public acceptance of the “peaceful” nuclear industry, and of community agreement on matters nuclear.

In the Western world, we have this quaint idea of democracy, in which people have a big say about setting up a new industry. Private enterprise is very highly valued, and successful industries, with the jobs they provide, are of the utmost importance. So for the nuclear industry, it is vital for its survival, to be perceived as economically viable. These two test cases are critical to prove this viability. NuScale didn’t do that required job – perhaps X-Energy can.

This could all change, anyway. The nuclear lobby is pushing microreactors for military use. In the USA they’re urging the government to to streamline overly burdensome regulations and remove unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles to SMR development. Security, defence etc becomes a sacred cow, and the public seems OK about a lot of money being spent there. After all, it’s tax-payer money, so not so obviously needing “my” investment. So when all is said and done, gen public could come to accept the real purpose of the nuclear industry, and no more need to prove small modular nuclear reactors as financially viable or even small.

27 July 2026, https://theaimn.net/the-nasty-truth-about-small-nuclear-reactors-toxic-fuel-and-toxic-wastes/

A lot of enthusiastic guff goes on about the joys of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs). They don’t say much about the fuels that SMRs require. So – just for fun, let’s take a look at that. Let’s pretend, for the moment, that SMRs actually exist, and that they are privately funded, cheap, clean, safe, and welcomed by local communities. So – that’s all good.

Now – what about their fuel?

They don’t need as much, or perhaps ANY dirty uranium mining. Ain’t that great? Well some designs (eg, the Westinghouse evinci micro reactor) do use low-enriched uranium (LEU) which contains less than 20% of uranium-235 (U-235). Such LEU SMRs have a shorter expected life, and because of their graphite content have a high volume of wastes. So now the emphasis is on a new kind of fuel – high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU): 5–20% U-235 and/or plutonium.

For a non-physicist such as myself, trying to navigate the labyrinth of information on nuclear fuels is a daunting task. And I’m sure that the nuclear lobby intends to keep it that way. They’ve traded for decades on the principle that the great unwashed cannot and should not understand nuclear power, and that only nuclear physicists are qualified to have an opinion on this. (No wonder they vilified Dr Helen Caldicott, who described nuclear power as “an expensive way to boil water”).

What makes it all more complicated is the variety of SMR designs, and of the fuel types now being planned, generally to use the HALEU or mixed uranium-plutonium. This means that the SMR company has to get these advanced fuels from somewhere more special than the conventional uranium fuel train. But who supplies the world’s highly enriched uranium? Omigawd – it’s Russia! So that fact has caused a bit of a panic. The U.S, government’s Department of Energy has now selected 11 advanced reactor designs under its Reactor Pilot Program, most of them to. run on HALEU. As Peter McKillop of the Energy Mix says:

“… here lies the problem. By embracing HALEU, the DOE is effectively jump‑starting an international HALEU market and expanding the global circulation of material that can shorten the path to a bomb.”

The required plutonium has to come from recycling the spent nuclear fuel from large nuclear reactors. Of course the nuke lobby boasts that this solves the nuclear waste problem – what was previously called “trash” now becomes a “resource” and a nuclear waste solution. More about that later on.

The fuel needs of SMRs raise not only the weapons proliferation problem: they bring the risks of radiation-releasing accidents, theft, terrorism, and consequently the need for extra security and extra costs.

What about the radioactive wastes?

The nuclear lobby is rather coy on this subject. When their propagandists are talking to us, the great unwashed, they tell a comforting and optimistic story. You see, SMRs produce a very small volume of radioactive wastes, and even that can be recycled to be used again, leaving an even smaller volume. So SMRs are not only themselves clean, but they are a benefit to humanity, solving the existing nuclear waste problem.

SMR propagandists don’t bother our poor little heads with the technical details. That’s because the technical details tell quite a different story. Stanford-led research finds small modular reactors will exacerbate challengesof highly radioactive nuclear waste. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences “Our results show that most small modular reactor designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30.

SMRs will produce more voluminous and chemically/physically reactive waste than LWRs, which will impact options for the management and disposal of this waste. The very high toxicity of these wastes mean that the spent fuel pellets will require a larger area in deep disposal than those from conventional reactors. SMR waste streams will bear significant (radio)chemical differences from those of existing reactors. “Molten salt and sodium-cooled SMRs will use highly corrosive and pyrophoric fuels and coolants that, following irradiation, will become highly radioactive.”

No wonder the current push for SMRs does not emphasise that fraudulent story about wastes. For ordinary people it is probably the really ugliest and most off-putting aspect of any presentation of the wonders of small modular nuclear reactors.

22 July 2026, https://theaimn.net/crunch-time-for-the-nuclear-lobbys-biggest-lie-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/

There could be a big drama now, about Small Modular Nuclear Reactors sort of not really going to happen in the UK. But I don’t think so. The nuclear lobby is adept at twisting a negative outlook into a sorta positive one. And I’m sorry to say, but I think that Andy Burnham might just co-operate in this process.

At the moment, the UK, and the world, are waiting for the UK’s new progressive poster boy, Andy Burnham, to declare his policies on all sorts of things. His general theme is “left of centre”, socially progressive, with the emphasis on economic reform – “business-friendly socialism”. Most likely, Burnham’s approach to the big issues of climate and nuclear will be a cautious “business-as usual.” Those who are deeply concerned about climate and nuclear issues can hardly blame him. Unfortunately, the reality is that Burnham could never have got where he is now, if he bucked the prevailing system, with Labour now a kind of weaker Tory party.

What has this got to do with Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?

Well, as I have written before, the global nuclear lobby now depends on the UK to kick off the new nuclear renaissance, with a fleet of small nuclear reactors in the UK, as promised by the previous Prime Minister with his Great British Energy – Nuclear. The stated purpose is to provide the UK soon, with cheap, plentiful, clean, climate-friendly, proven technology, safe, community-welcomed, waste-free, peaceful electricity. In that statement there are already 10 lies. Of all those lies, I would say that “soon” is the biggest whopper of them all.

SOON

The most “exciting” SMR plan, that of Poland-based SGE (Synthos Green Energy), promises 14 SMRs in operation by 2034. That would provide about the same amount of electricity as one large nuclear reactor. However, SMRs that each provide 300 MW would provide very much more – but then they would have to be larger, and no longer qualify as “small”. Either way, that would be only a beginning – many, many more SMRs would be needed to meet the UK’s electricity needs. And, let’s not forget – the coming wave of data farms for artificial intelligence is going to probably double that need.

So, even in the most optimistic scenario, SMRs are not going to cut the mustard for showing the world that soon Small Modular Nuclear Reactors will power a nation. Of course the promise of “soon” also relates to the claim that SMRs are needed for action on climate change. Clearly, they are going to be irrelevant, too late for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas we have renewable energy right now. And of course, but rarely mentioned – energy efficiency, energy conservation – the really effective way to reduce greenhouse emissions.

CHEAP

The next biggest whopper about Small Modular Nuclear Reactors is the statement that they would be cheap. Here we get into the minefield of deliberate obfuscation about the financial facts. The cost of building SMRs is likely to be astronomic, and the only practicable way is to build them en masse. That would mean that the company building them would need to have big orders, not just for one or two reactors. Big orders bring with them a heap of problems. Like an IKEA cupboard, these “modular” items are all the same – if you buy a whole lot of them they’d better all work out perfectly – no chance really to just try out one. Buyers are reluctant, and so are investors.

Of course, the argument will be that SMRs will provide cheap electricity. Well that absolutely would necessitate economies of scale. That was the reason that the idea of small reactors was abandoned in the past. Simply, a large reactor producing a huge amount of electricity has got to produce it more efficiently and cheaply. The proponents of SMRs never talk about the accompanying costs – insurance, the security staff required, the transport and disposal of toxic long-lasting wastes. The truth is, those proponents absolutely know that their product is in fact very expensive. And that is why the subservient corporate media consistently baffle us with convoluted arguments that minimise the cost to tax-payers. They know damn well that the only way that SMRs could possibly be developed is by government funding. Keir Starmer backed a Rolls Royce plan that would be blatantly funded by the tax-payer. The SGE plan purports to be privately funded, but it’s tangled up with various government-funded schemes.

These were 2 lies – but there are 8 more to go.

Plentiful? – well, apart from Russia and China’s 2 duds – SMR’s don’t actually exist – quite the reverse of plentiful.

Clean? They are still part of a dirty production system, starting from uranium mining, with its workers exposed to radiation, and its piles of radioactive tailings.

Climate-friendly? There is a whole chain of steps from mining through to waste disposal that involve fossil fuel energy.

Proven technology? Well, they don’t even exist.

Safe? SMRs can’t melt down in the same way as big reactors, but still contain radioactive material, a target for theft, terrorists or military attacks Can still have accidents releasing radiation.

Community-welcomed? This really is a big one, with a lack of proper consultation on plans – There’s strong resistance from some local groups, such as Radiation Free Lakeland.

Peaceful? The hidden military pressures behind the new push for small nuclear reactors.

Wastes? Stanford-led research finds small modular reactors will exacerbate challenges of highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Now that Starmer, with his big promises, has gone, it’s probably no longer up to the UK’s Prime Minister to lead the global charge on small nuclear reactors. Andy Burnham has to negotiate the whole troubled energy scene, try to be progressive, placate the fossil fuel lobbies, and the nuclear lobby. He has been very quiet on nuclear policy, but he is committed to the existing defence and AUKUS nuclear agreements. So for “peaceful” nuclear, he’s most likely to go for a compromise – SMRs, supporting just a few, rather than the much-touted “fleets” of them.

So, no doubt the USA will take up the torch – One Year After Executive Orders, U.S. Nuclear Energy Renaissance is in Full Swing.

The media is awash with the wonder of new nuclear reactors, in concert with the AI data farm boom. The few voices who call for restraint, and point out the problems, are drowned out by the cacophony of handouts from the companies promising SMRs, handouts faithfully regurgitated by the corporate media, and by those universities which have bought into the propaganda.

There are the many good, decent people, whose living depends on their work within the uranium-nuclear-defence industries. And communities that are caught up in the nuclear industry, and its associated government bonuses. And many professionals, especially journalists, who, if they paused to look at the whole picture, might see the folly and the danger and the lies, of this so much touted technology. And of course, politicians who would be out of a job if they opposed the sacred cows of new energy and nuclear defence. So the whole SMR juggernaut moves on, bit by bit, and has itself become one big lie.

14 July 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/the-global-small-nuclear-reactor-bandwagon-is-led-by-britain-it-ought-to-fail-but-will-it/

Why on Earth does the Small Nuclear Reactor media bandwagon exist?

That’s a fair question, because it has been shown time and time again that small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are not an economically viable way to provide electricity.

I can only conclude that there are other reasons for the present juggernaut of promotion of SMRs.

You may not have noticed the blithering onslaught of media promotion of SMRs going on over the past weeks, (interestingly, in conjunction with the political demise of Sir Keir Starmer). With the dramatic events in the Persian Gulf, and in climate extremities, dominating the media, a fuss about SMRs seems a small matter.

But it is not a small matter.

The global media juggernaut for SMRs is potentially essential for the survival of the global nuclear industry. If one nation sets up a multitude of, or even a few, small nuclear reactors, that will provide the necessary respectability for the industry – to be accepted as cheap. clean. safe, and embraced by local communities.

Hooray – Britain to the rescue!.

Now, there’s extraordinary excitement in both the British and overseas media. A current example:

The High Value Manufacturing (HVM) Catapult has launched a national consultation, to help UK industry capture the economic and industrial benefits of more than £100bn of expected investment in the country’s civil and defence nuclear programmes over the next decade. Industry, government, academia and regional partners are invited to contribute to the consultation through written submissions, stakeholder workshops and a programme of regional engagement running throughout 2026.

HVM Catapult doesn’t specifically state SMRs, but that’s where the UK media fervour is at. In a previous article, I have mentioned The Times, Telegraph, PR Newswire, Energy Live, Business Green, among the British enthusiasts. Internationally, there’s Construction News, Global Banking and Finance Review, World Nuclear News, Indux, and more.

What is new and remarkable about this UK SMR media fervour?

Well, there are two things. One is that it is all pitching the UK as the leader for the new nuclear renaissance. The other is that this will be a privately-led renaissance. Hence the importance of the “private” SGE £35bn plan for a fleet of SMRs across Britain, rather than the government supported Rolls Royce plan.

I digress here to point out that three nations have tried and failed to set up small nuclear reactors. Russia and China have each managed to develop one actually functioning small nuclear reactor. – in both cases – that took decades, and neither is working out very successfully – Russia – (Akademik Lomonosov floating NPP) and China (HTR-PM high temperature gas cooled reactor). The USA nearly got one happening – The Rise and Fall of NuScale: a nuclear cautionary tale.

So – at last it’s all going to happen ! And the UK is the leader – hip hip hooray! Except that the UK’s biggest SMR promoter, PM Keir Starmer is about to bow out at any moment. The policies of the heir apparent, Andy Burnham, are curiously unknown. He’s got a respectably Leftie background in supporting nuclear veterans, but I couldn’t find anything on his nuclear industry views. And, I’m inclined to think that he, or any new UK Prime Minister, would not be able to withstand the pressure of the cavalcade of vested interests in the nuclear industry. Those vested interests include not only all the UK and global stakeholders in the industry’s supply chain, but the fawning corporate media and the financially dependent universities

There are some strong voices that speak out against this smr folly. Phil Johnstone and Andy Stirling of the University of Sussex have given a powerful condemnation of this SMR push – The hidden military pressures behind the new push for small nuclear reactors.

The nuclear industry was inaugurated in the early 1940s, specifically for creating an atomic bomb. That has continued to be its purpose for nearly a century, and it its sole real purpose today. Commercial “peaceful” nuclear power was set up as a temporarily successful fig leaf over that truly inhuman purpose. Temporarily successful, because it did provide efficient and seemingly cheap, seemingly clean, seemingly safe electricity for millions of people. We now know that not only are there long term costs – financial, environmental, health and safety costs – but that new big nuclear reactors are monumentally unaffordable.

In this 21st Century – how to make this industry look peaceful, clean, safe, and attractive to bright young career-oriented people? Well if that’s now an impossible task for dirty great Big nuclear reactors, how about a plethora of Small fig-leaves – Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.?

There may be a continued media deluge about UK’s golden SMR future, as promised by the dear soon-to- be-departed Starmer. But I doubt that there will be a deluge of investors keen to get on board the juggernaut. One saving grace of our capitalist society is that our financial writers tend to tell the truth about investment prospects. They might save the UK from this SMR folly. Then the nuclear lobby will have to really ramp up the war-mongering fever that already exists.

5 July 2026, https://theaimn.net/as-uks-prime-minister-fades-away-will-his-beloved-small-nuclear-reactor-dream-fade-too/

As soon as mid-July, Sir Keir Starmer is expected to finally quit his job as British Prime Minister. He’s not very popular, either within his own party, or with the general public. Labour’s previous popular leader, Jeremy Corbyn, opposed nuclear power. Soon after coming to power, Starmer called for tech companies to work alongside the government’s Great British Energy – Nuclear, to build SMRs to power energy-intensive AI data centres across Britain. Starmer might be hoping to be, later on, renowned for his legacy in revolutionising British energy systems, and producing a glorious renaissance for the global nuclear industry.

But possibly not.

“I say: build, baby, build,” – Starmer’s theme on Small Nuclear Reactors looks now, on the face of it, to be a resounding winner for Britain on the global nuclear scene. Why? Because… haven’t you heard? It is all over the British press that the UK is to get a fleet of SMRs with a multi-billion dollar “privately financed” scheme (helped just a bit by the government), to start generating in 2034.

SGE is a European Small Modular Reactor (SMR) development and investment platform. Founded by Polish billionaire Michał Sołowow, SGE has plans for SMR developments across Europe. On July 1st SGE announced in glowing terms, its UK plans for “delivering efficient, safe, affordable, and clean nuclear energy power at fleet scale.” It has established a consortium, SGE SMR UK Limited, as its dedicated UK-based project vehicle.

SGE hopes to use the GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 design, to build under the government’s advanced nuclear framework (which was initiated by Starmer in February after the government promised to rip up “archaic rules” and slash regulations to “get Britain building”). SGE boasts that this SMR design is a “proven technology,” but it’s really a smaller, and as yet untested, version of the large boiling water nuclear reactor.

Where’s the money coming from?

The plan is to put in £35bn of private capital to build 14 small modular nuclear reactors on three sites across the UK. The consortium SGE SMR UK consists of SGE (formerly Synthos Green Energy), GE Vernova, Hitachi Nuclear, Samsung C&T, Laing O’Rourke, Aecon Group, Google Cloud, Fermi Development, and Etara. The biggest investor presumably is the Polish company.

Under the National Wealth Fund, Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) set up its Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Technical Partner contract (TP Contract) as a way for the government to help fund SMR development. It initially forecast that it may need £20bn to cover the cost of the (TP) Contract. “GBE-N has ultimately decided to award only one TP Contract and the contract award notice value reflects this.”

SGE plans to deploy under a Contract for Difference framework with National Wealth Fund engagement. I know that the contract for difference scheme means a fixed price for electricity bills once the project begins generating electricity. If the market price is below the fixed price, the government tops up the payment to the company. I don’t know what the National Wealth Fund engagement means, and I suspect that I’m not the only one puzzled about this.

In May 2026 Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) announced that Rolls-Royce SMR has been awarded Stage 1 of its Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Technical Partner contract (TP Contract). Stage 1 has a “forecast” price of £359M. A furtherr £8.17bn is estimated for the second delivery phase. Rolls Royce expects the SMRs to start operating in the mid 2030s.

So how much of the tax-payers’ £20bn is Rolls Royce going to get? And is SGE SMR UK going to get some too, and if so, how much? Or is the Polish entrepreneur’s SGE SMR UK truly really going to go it alone – with private financing?

Mysterious unanswered questions

Through the Freedom of Information Act, The New Civil Engineer requested some detail on the breakdown of the TP Contract award ‘s available £20bn. Great British Energy – Nuclear ‘s reply was – “GBE-N does not hold the information you have requested.”

Given the nuclear industry’s notorious history of delays and cost overruns, it’s pretty important to know how much each of these competing SMR projects is likely to cost, how long each would really take to come into operation, and how much the tax-payer will have to cough up.

What a complicated mess!

In 2023 the UK joined enthusiastically with world leaders in The Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050. The Starmer Labour government took this up with zeal, and the message has been reinforced by academia and the media. Several UK universities have jumped on the nuclear bandwagon. Just this week, the Manchester University announced:

The University of Manchester and United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory (UKNNL) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) formalising a wide-ranging partnership to advance nuclear science, grow the UK’s nuclear workforce, and strengthen the country’s position as a global leader in nuclear technology.

The UK media, except for The Guardian and New Civil Engineer, is ecstatically regurgitating nuclear lobby handouts. On July 2nd we have excited and positive articles on the SGE SMR UK project – from The Times, Telegraph, PR Newswire, Energy Live, Business Green, as well as from leading international news media. This privately-funded SMR project is a global first.

The New Civil Engineer is peskily pursuing its search for information on the UK government’s planned funding of small nuclear reactors, while the rest of them continue applauding this small nuclear fantasy.

I’m not here to push the points that SMRs are not cheap, not proven, not safe, not clean, not environmentally beneficial, not free of toxic wastes, and not actually in existence. Plenty of economists and scientists have made those assessments. Is the SGE UK thing going to really happen? Or is the Rolls Royce SMR thing going to beat it? When and where are these reactors going to operate? I’m just wondering about – for how long the UK pro SMR charade is going to play. Now that the leading actor Keir Starmer is about to bow out, will the whole performance have a very short season indeed?

23 June 26 https://theaimn.net/memory-politics-a-tragic-military-strategy-in-ukraine/

I came across the views of Marta Havryshko in a YouTube video on June 15th, in a lengthy audio essay.

What struck me about this speech, was that it comes from a Jewish Ukrainian woman, who is describing her own observations, living in Ukraine today. I also found the title of her speech very interesting – The tragedy of Memory Politics in Ukraine, Israel & the West. That’s because I cannot help noticing that in the prevailing commentaries on Ukraine, the commentators seem to have forgotten the complexity in Ukraine’s recent modern history.

Marta Havryshko is aware of this complex history. She has been living through the most recent part of it. She sees it from a Jewish perspective, and she is no fan of Putin’s Russia. But – she also brings her awareness of history to current affairs in Ukraine, and she is no fan of Volodymyr Zelensky either.

I tried to transcribe the entire 95 minutes of her speech. It is too long for an article, but I will include excerpts here, to illustrate her themes. She discusses Ukraine’s troubled history of anti-semitism, and the Nazi period in Ukraine. She focusses on Zelensky and the current accepted views on Ukraine’s history – the apparent forgetting of the facts in that history, as Ukrainian extreme nationalism now flourishes.

Marta describes her childhood, and education in Ukraine. She learned at school the history of Soviet Russia’s oppression of Ukrainians, and of the heroic freedom fighters who resisted the Russians:

“I was was raised on this nationalistic myth about glorious fighters, members of the Ukraine underground movement the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and the organisation of Ukraine nationalists. We learned all these patriotic songs. Our family gatherings involved histories about Soviet repressions and actually, the house that my parents built was on the territory on the land that was seized by Soviets in 1939. Some of my family were involved on the ground in the Ukrainian nationalist movement and they were oppressed. Some of them were booted in prison and some of them were sent to Siberia. So I was raised in this highly nationalistic environment.

When I became a student at Lviv National University actually I met almost the same atmosphere. Lviv is a very nationalistic city with the biggest monument to Stepan Bandera (leader of the UPA). My home was close to Bandera street, and many streets had these partisan names.”

Marta explains how the memories of wartime events have now become confused, enmeshed into present day views and anti-Russian fervour:

“After 2014 this very western Ukraine nationalistic historical myth started to move eastward. After 2022 it became really the national myth promoted on the very national level. That’s why for example under President Zelensky we nowadays have streets named Bandera and Shukhevych (another UPA leader) in Kirik, home town of our president Zelensky.

This myth is cultivated in Ukraine in war time. Another dimension of this very troubling development in is that Nazi apologism is flourishing because many members of the Ukraine nationalists on the ground during the second world war were members of auxiliary police under German occupation and some of them occupied chief positions, so they were not just ordinary rank and file policemen – they were chiefs of police. Vasyl Levkovych, for example, is a very glorious figure in this nationalist pantheon. Those people nowadays are celebrated as freedom fighters and their direct participation in the holocaust is obscured, is marginalised and silenced and even denied.

At the holocaust memorial I was really shocked. I saw these fancy souvenir magazines with Daddy Bandera socks and Daddy Bandera bags. In one day I spent almost three hours in the city center and I saw an amount of different hate symbols like SS bolts, like black sun like Nazi eagles, like swastikas. I never saw in my life. in Western Europe, this concentration of these Nazi hate symbols. and the amount of different hate symbols – SS bolts, black sun, Nazi eagle, different combinations of swastikas. In Ukraine it’s so normalised – why? Because it’s a part of military culture nowadays. Those symbols are adopted primarily by military actors and by soldiers. The trust in Ukraine military is so high in Ukraine society – approximately more than 90% of Ukrainians nowadays trust Ukraine military. That’s why they just accept this.

Ukraine military nowadays is full of different far right groups. They are sponsored and they are celebrated as freedom fighters. In the Ukraine military we have overt Nazi apologists. For example we have the Niga named after the Nachtigall Battalion formed by the Germans and this battalion participated in the Nazi Barbarossa plan against Russia in 1941. From the documents of some participants of this unit we know that they participated in anti-Jewish pogroms.

Especially after 2022 so many neo-Nazis and far right groups neo-Nazis and far right groups were empowered and they openly promote their agenda. They openly celebrate Nazi units. Why? Because their ideology is.” Those guys are lesser evil because they fought our eternal enemy, meaning Russia. And they compare themselves with Nazis.So it’s not only Putin who compares them with Nazis, but that they themselves compare themselves with Nazis, and it’s ridiculous, it’s just crazy.”

Marta explains “memory politics” as a strategy, a weapon of war:

Those who are against military mobilisation are not a minority any more, Those who want to have peace with Russia, those who want to build a relationship with Russia on good terms, who don’t want to be engaged in eternal war with Russia, they are “bad Ukrainians” – you need to view Russia as the eternal enemy. For our children, this means only permanent war. With the anti-Russian project and narrative we will be in constant war with the superior angry and very powerful aggressor., in constant destruction.

We don’t want to spend our lives, sacrificing our life for what? – for our political elites. Ukraine is now a colonial client of the West, The West is deciding what money will go where, what laws will be adopted. In our fight against the Russian imperial state we are becoming a colony of Western imperialism. No-one is talking about this, because it’s a “good” empire.

We still have enormous casualties, and those casualties are hidden.

Memory politics is the main issue. They make movies etc about Russian atrocities but never about Ukrainian atrocities. Ukraine killed Ukrainian students in occupied Donbass, in Spring 2022. It was painful to see how many people denied it, and then justified it, blaming those students for “collaboration with Russia,” some were trying to present this as collateral damage.

The state is pouring so much money into commemorating this war. It’s about producing, inflicting emotions. First of all it’s always in both Ukrainian and English language, It’s for Western audiences, to inflict emotion, to inflict empathy, to present Ukraine as poor victim, to present a black and white picture when Ukraine is of course presented as the forces of good, and Russia as the forces of evil. Nothing of course about what happened to the people of Donbass in 2014, 2015, 2016 – always about guilt of Russia, bad Russia, crazy Putin, imperialism in Russian blood, and angels Ukraine.

So memory politics is a part of Ukraine war propaganda. Many intellectuals are engaged in this propaganda, and many receive grants from abroad. And it supports the Western agenda: Many many Western people – who discovered Ukraine only in February 2022 – see Ukraine as this angel, who was unjustifiably attacked, and is bleeding, and needs support to continue resistance. Nobody is asking those people kidnapped in the vans. Nobody asking those women, their sisters, their mothers, their wives – “Do they want to fight, to be sent to the meat-grinder against their will?” This myth of resilience, of this nation, who would rather die than live under Russian occupation. But this myth is produced by Zelensky propaganda. I must admit they’re doing a very good job in this, because Zelensky is very good at entertainment – it’s his profession.”

3 June 2026 Noel Wauchope AIM Extra , https://theaimn.net/the-costs-of-nuclear-wastes-from-in-service-nuclear-submarines/

It is a rather nauseating entertainment, watching Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles wriggling around to con the public into believing that it will be cheaper for Australia to buy used nuclear submarines, than to buy new ones. I’m not quite sure who invented the new term to replace “used” – but “in service:” is a lovely euphemism, worthy of Marles. Australia’s not buying “used” nuclear submarines – oh no – we’re getting “in service” nuclear submarines.

You gotta admire Richard Marles – he is indeed the master of the weasel word:

“The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretaries welcomed the proposed approach to streamline Australia’s acquisition of Virginia-class submarines (VCS), simplifying supply chain management, operational and maintenance requirements, and maximising cost efficiencies. This approach would enable Australia to acquire three in-service VCS in lieu of a mixture of new and in-service VCS variants.”

“Chasing simplicity is at the heart of why we have pursued this.”

“So firstly, we are paying an amount to the US in terms of its industrial base. That is to create the space for the Virginia-class submarines to be transferred to Australia. But then there is the purchase price in respect of each of the submarines and this will be more cost effective in relation to that and it’ll be significant.”

Work all that out, if you can be bothered.

Anyway, all that doesn’t matter. We know now that (a) these nuclear submarines will be unsuitable for monitoring Australia’s coastline, and really intended for attacking China on behalf of the USA, and (b) will be obsolete by the time we get them, anyway.

But here’s the bit that nobody’s talking about – the “elephant in the ocean.”

Australia is to cop the management of the nuclear wastes in these second hand submarines. Do we know how old they are? Do we know how long before that toxic forever radioactive trash has to buried, or stored in concrete canisters, or what?

And – dare I be so rude as to mention this? What about the costs of disposing of the USA’s nuclear submarine wastes?

The entire global nuclear establishment is very coy about assessing the real long term or short term costs of nuclear wastes.

France has been working on this since 1991 with its Cigéo project in Bure (Meuse). This project was launched in 1991. Its regulatory process spans decades, with partial commissioning expected by 2050 and a public inquiry in 2026.

On the costs of this project – Wikipedia states:

“Evaluation of the total cost of Cigéo must take into account all the costs of storage over more than 100 years: studies, construction of the first structures (surface buildings, shafts, declines (sloped tunnels)), operation (staff, maintenance, energy…), the gradual construction of underground structures, then their closure, their monitoring etc. Part of these costs/investments will be the salaries of the workforce employed in the digging, construction and storage work, who, according to Andra, will number 1500 to 2000 persons for at least a hundred years.”

The French government has had a bash at estimating these costs:

“A ministerial decree published in France has confirmed the latest cost estimate of the planned Cigéo deep geologic spent nuclear fuel repository at €33.4bn ($39bn) – €37bn including taxes – of which €9.7bn is for initial construction.”

Apart from all the other well-known considerations – safety, danger, terrorism risks, risks of nuclear proliferation, and public opposition, there has been a great reluctance in the nuclear establishment to address the problem of the costs of nuclear wastes.

So Richard Marles can go on, comfortingly bleating about the financial benefits of these second hand nuclear submarines and their second-hand radioactive trash, because as we say in upper class parlance – it’s “just not done” to talk about the financial costs of nuclear wastes.

And now that both Liberal and Labor governments have committed us to taking over American nuclear submarine wastes, will that be the last of it? Are these useless nuclear submarines just the foot in the door for Australia to become the USA’s nuclear waste dump?

No. I don’t want my whole life on my damn phone. I use my phone only for conversations and text messages, not for email or any other internety thing. I use my computer, with its nice big screen for emails and all internety stuff. I don’t put any Apps on my phone. If Substack insists on Apps on phone - well, I don’t need Substack all that badly.

I travel around all the time - on trams, trains, buses, taxis. I have a driver’s licence, but no car. I see everybody else glued to their phones. But I watch the scenery, the gardens, the passing parade. Because I don’t want to live on my bloody phone. I want to live in the real world. I do my internety stuff, quietly, at home on my computer.

And - I have twice left my phone on the train, and lost it forever. Too bad, the finders wouldn’t get much from it. And I haven’t dropped the phone into the toilet, or accidentally smashed it - but I might, one day. Too bad. All the stuff that I really need is on my computer, not connected to my phone.

Who is it that wants me to live on my phone? Is it Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Jensen Huang? Those are a few of the names flung around- of the technobillionaires, who squabble amongst themselves about which one is to rue the world and live forever.

Why does everybody conform, have to do the same thing? It’s a worrying trend, as every little commuter stays glued to their phone. Almost a sad little reflection of the world’s political leaders, who all conform to the system - as they bow and scrape before that charlatan, Trump.

Amen

19 May 2026, https://theaimn.net/will-there-be-global-war-over-taiwan/

Will there be global war over Taiwan? Ask a sociologist.

Having never actually studied sociology, I am indeed prepared to be shot down in flames, for my audacity in pronouncing opinions on sociology. But that thought has never stopped me, as I believe that anyone and everyone can have opinions, and should be taken seriously.

Britannica says:

“Sociology, a social science that studies human societies, their interactions, and the processes that preserve and change them… the processes that preserve and change human societies.”

What prompted me to consider this, is the news coverage of Donald Trump’s visit to China, and his interaction (accompanied by business moguls) with President Xi Jinping. Was this the first part of a process that might preserve and change the global society? The general theme of most articles is that not much was achieved in this meeting, and particular concerns were not resolved. The main concern was about Taiwan. Will the USA come to the defence of Taiwan if China were to take it over? There was the need to open up the Strait of Hormuz There were trade concerns, particularly about China’s near monopoly of the rare earths market, about USA’s plan to to sell Taiwan $US14 billion more in weapons, and China’s to send weapons to Iran.

Other touchy topics like climate change and human rights were avoided.

It all looks as if there wasn’t any process, and it all came out with the same stalemate, and the same ambiguity about Taiwan. So we’re back into the old dilemma – will there be global war over Taiwan? But there was an interaction. Whatever we all think of Donald Trump, or of Xi Jinping, they had a courteous and cordial meeting, and Trump is the first American President to visit Beijing twice.

So, I’m thinking that this is the start of something new. Not because these powerful men might have altruistic ideas and plans, but because of another consideration. This was highlighted in an insightful article by ABC journalist Bang Xiao, who wrote:

“This week in Beijing, both Donald Trump and Xi Jinping quietly admitted something the rest of the world has been slow to grasp. Neither of them can afford the collision… Two structurally interdependent superpowers who have decided, for now, to manage their rivalry rather than let it manage them.“

It’s some kind of a comfort to realise that financial realities might now be prioritised over glorious ideals of national pride, the heroism of war, patriotic sacrifices and all those noble ideals which, with modern warfare, are becoming ecocidal. Neither the USA nor China can now afford a global war. Xi Jinping referred to the “Thucydides Trap.” In the 5th century, Greek historian Thucydides described this situation where a rising power challenges an established one, usually leading to a prolonged war.

The significant thing here is that China is no longer seen as a “rising power” – and this really is all about sociology. SL Kanthan writes that: “The Thucydides Trap is no more,” and gives a powerful explanation of China’s debts and its slowing economy. There have been recent articles on China’s current economic decline, but this is not really a new development, but more of a steady decline over years. China’s GDP growth has been decelerating – “the slowing empire, the tired dragon.”

The sociological facts come in here. There’s been quite a dramatic fall in China’s birth rate. With a dwindling population, and with the median age rising, it’s a poor forecast for China’s working-age proportion of the population. The fall in what was a booming real estate industry has resulted in a rapid decline in construction and related industries and the loss of employment opportunities. This job loss has been exacerbated by the loss of jobs for college graduates, with robots now taking over much of their work. China has severe and seemingly intractable debt problems. Finally, China’s military is in some trouble, and not ready for war.

With all the chest-thumping and the rush for new weaponry amongst the military-industrial complex, there’s a lack of concern for sociological realities such as those now affecting China. And China is not the only country affected by population change, economic problems, public and private debt – all factors that dampen enthusiasm for war. I sometimes ponder on what was the greatest scientific achievement of our age. Was it the atomic bomb, rockets, the digital revolution, medical breakthroughs?

I’m thinking that the most influential one might be effective contraception. That is certainly a huge factor in China’s slowdown, and its leadership’s reluctance about war, and its readiness to co-operate, while still competing with the West. The economic realities on both sides are there, on a background of sociological changes that make war look financially unappealing. And we all know that Trump, despite his bombast, is more interested in money than in anything else.

11 May 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/the-death-of-professional-journalism/

As a person who’s always been fascinated with Journalism, although myself pretty much an amateur, I have admired those writers who bring us the facts – “Just the facts, ma’am”. But in reality, even the facts can be used in a biased way. That is often done by the omission technique, by leaving out some of the facts.

So for me, all journalism has a bias, and I like it when a writer acknowledges that bias, and makes it clear. However, news and important events don’t happen in a vacuum, but in an environment of conflicting opinions and attitudes – involving people from different cultures, with different histories, emotions and ambitions. So the very best writers are able to step back a bit, and see the many shades of grey in a story.

And the other great qualities in a journalist are what I would call grace and respect. This becomes important in interviews. The really great journalist is one who knows the facts, and asks the hard questions in a courteous way. This is why I’ve always preferred the “mainstream” journalists, who have achieved that level of confidence, and have the backing, and funding, of a reputable professional journal to support their work.

But what’s happening now?

There are still some great mainstream journalists out there, doing their valuable work. I have mentioned some, in previous articles. But what about the current status of ‘reputable professional journals”?

In today’s news, one of the world’s top journalists is herself the news, on this very topic:
Christiane Amanpour Lays Out Her Fear for CNN With Blistering Attack on David Ellison’s CBS ‘Realignment’:

“Christiane Amanpour pointed to the “ideological realignment” at CBS News on Wednesday as she expressed her “concern” at what her own network might look like under the oversight of incoming owner David Ellison.

“Clearly I’m concerned, and I’m not sure how much I’m allowed to say about a corporate thing that’s underway, but I am, obviously, as a person, as a journalist with a record, concerned,” Amanpour said. “And I’m concerned based on what’s happened to the other things that he’s taken over already like CBS News right? I mean, do I have to list what’s happening there?”

Amanpour is not just anybody in the journalistic world. For one thing, Wikipedia lists her 35+ prestigious awards, and her membership of important global media organisations. She is a UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador for Freedom of Expression and journalist safety. I have admired her articles on world leaders, and controversial figures, and her respectful but persistent, questioning of them – for example, in interviewing Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

Some of Amanpour’s principles on reporting:

“There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral, you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn’t mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing.” (The New York Times).

“Some people accused me of being pro–Muslim in Bosnia, but I realized that our job is to give all sides an equal hearing, but in cases of genocide, you can’t just be neutral. You can’t just say, “Well, this little boy was shot in the head and killed in besieged Sarajevo and that guy over there did it, but maybe he was upset because he argued with his wife.” No, there is no equality, and we had to tell the truth.” (The Guardian).

I think that I left out another quality essential in a great journalist – a humanitarian outlook, which clearly Christiane Amanpour has in spades. That is another reason why her concern about changes at CBS and CNN is significant.

For a long time, I’ve been worried about the mainstream media’s self-censorship, especially here in Australia, where we’re supposed to have such freedom of the press. How long is real freedom of the press going to last, here, or anywhere?

In the meantime, I do think that it is up to the ever-more important alternative media to keep on trying to get the facts out, but with recognition of those shades of grey, and some respect for the individuals involved in those events.

Australia has inherited an absolutely adversarial legal system, and now has an absurdly adversarial political system. We need commentary that is broader, more willing to pay attention to conflicting views.

A case in point is the current Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. We in the alternative media are quick to pounce on this as kow-towing to the prevailing pro-Zionist propaganda. But in reality, already the Commission has allowed the voice of the Jewish Council, an organisation that is critical of Israel. And as for the Royal Commissioner, Virginia Bell – she has had a distinguished career in support of human rights. And I ask you – what better recommendation can Virginia Bell have, than this – from Liberal former treasurer and Jewish Australian Josh Frydenberg?:

“It is unthinkable the Prime Minister would choose a Commissioner that did not have the total confidence of the Jewish community.”

2 May 26 https://theaimn.net/if-scientific-facts-are-uncomfortable-to-us-well-dont-worry-they-can-be-changed/

Some recent studies of adolescent health found that depression and anxiety are becoming more common in teenagers. It’s attributed to personal factors like suffering loneliness and bullying. And I certainly don’t doubt the importance of those factors. But could it also be that the state of the world, little background situations like global heating, or imminent nuclear war, are causing some to worry about their future?

There are many teenagers now who turn out to be having very different, unusual, thinking patterns. This reality is now recognised, and health experts work to ease the load on neurodiverse children. Sometimes I wonder if these differently thinking people are in fact more reasonable than the rest of us. They know that things are crook. And whom to believe, in the barrage of information in today’s world?

Well, we used to believe the scientists, those highly trained people who studied the world’s environment, and public health issues, and technical safety issues. But they’ve been telling us some very worrying stuff, especially relating to the heating planet, rising sea levels, shortage of fresh water, disappearance of many natural species. And there’s more – the prevalence of plastics and toxic chemicals in our environment, even in us. And the risks of more pandemics – it’s all too much. Too much factual information.

And indeed, in our 21st Century media environment, we are swamped with too much information, and so much of it in very brief formats, from innumerable sources. Not just for teenagers, but for everybody – whom to believe?

Well, if the scientific facts are gloomy, what to do about this, so that we can all feel better?

Donald Trump, in his inimitable way of simplifying, shortening and making clear the issue, always comes up with answers. And his administration is steadily putting these comforting messages into practice. it doesn’t really matter what the facts are. KellyAnn Conway explained that there are alternative facts. She’s gone from the White House, but quite likely to be back, if Trump manages to get another term as President. For the Trump government, alternative facts really are the way to get done whatever Trump and his greedy backers want to get done.

All 22 members of the advisory board that oversees the US National Science Foundation (NSF), a leading funder of fundamental science, were fired on 24 April without explanation. Every member of the NSF’s National Science Board (NSB) received an e-mail on Friday afternoon saying that “on behalf of President Donald J. Trump,” their positions were “terminated, effective immediately.”

The National Science Foundation board establishes NSF policies and approves major NSF awards, alongside advising Congress and the president. Congress’s National Science Foundation Act of 1950 established the NSF as an “independent agency” and created the board.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science commented on the sackings:

“… the latest in a string of erratic decisions that are destabilizing not only the National Science Foundation, but all of American science.”

The reason given (much later) for the sudden removal of all board members was that they were appointed by the president, but not confirmed by the Senate.

At this stage, nobody seems to know who will replace the 22 removed board members. The likely new Director will be Jim O’Neill. If confirmed, Jim O’Neill would be the first non-scientist or non-engineer to lead the agency. He is a biotechnology investor, and has been working in powerful positions in the Trump administration, implementing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ‘s program against childhood vaccinations.

It’s not as if this anti-science move is a new thing for the Trump government. It’s really just the culmination of a series of actions to weaken, discredit and defund science.

I guess that we shouldn’t be so surprised if non-scientists will now be taking over the funding and program decisions for science in the USA. After all, Trump’s record is one of making appointments of dubious relevance to the task required – e.g. a real estate developer, Steve Witkoff for the job of international peace envoy. And Trump himself, elected as a great business-deal man, despite the string of Trump business bankruptcies

I really wish that I knew an answer to this disturbing trend – as people lose faith in science and scientific expertise. It seems to me that comedians are our best hope at the moment, in pricking and bursting the bubbles of absurdity that come from cowardly media and political leaders, apparently scared to offend the USA leadership. We need the Lewis Carrolls and Groucho Marx es of today. And so, especially do today’s young people need those voices of truth in a world of alternative facts.

https://theaimn.net/the-new-nuclear-weapons-are-so-much-better-and-cheaper-theyre-the-enemys-nuclear-sites/

Yes, ain’t it grand! We, the God-fearing, God-loving, West and Israel don’t really need any longer to put our $billions of tax-payer money into those horribly expensive nuclear missiles, bombs, submarines. Good old new technology is providing us with much cheaper little drones.

The beauty of it all is that our enemies, those bad people in Iran, Russia, China, have got ready-made nuclear sites just sitting there, waiting to be gloriously exploded by our drones. If some sites, like nuclear reactors with strong containment covers are a bit too tough for drones, well non-nuclear missiles should do the job – still a lot cheaper than nuclear weapons.

And of course, there’s an awful lot of other nuclear stuff that is just as vulnerable, even more vulnerable, than the actual nuclear reactor. Nuclear spent fuel pools are a beaut target, with their extremely high radiation levels, risk of cooling system failure, with ensuing massive fire. Nuclear canisters, even ones clad with concrete, are quite a good target, too. And so are the various forms of transport of nuclear materials. And that’s before we’ve even considered the nuclear submarines, (some in operation, many dead and awaiting burial), nuclear weapons sites, and the transport of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear facilities have strong safety protections, the experts tell us.. But the trouble is, that was then, and this is now: in addition to material tools like drones and missiles, we have cyber digital tools – malaware and malicious computer code can be used to seriously disrupt, even destroy the other side’s nuclear systems – whether they be military, energy, or just research, nuclear facilities.

So, it’s an exciting time for the war-makers.

Perhaps too exciting? The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists discussed the Epic Fury threat by Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, to obliterate Iran and its nuclear sites:

… “signaling” near a live reactor is a high-stakes gamble with an unclear ultimate purpose. While the plant continues to feed the grid, a direct hit on its containment dome would trigger a radiological catastrophe far exceeding that of Chernobyl or Fukushima. With 70-80 tons of uranium dioxide in its core and a massive inventory of spent fuel lying in nearby cooling ponds, a breach would shroud the Persian Gulf with a lethal miasma of radioiodine and cesium-137. This wouldn’t just be a strike against a regime; it would be a death sentence for the region’s environment and its people.

And wait! What if the other side has the same idea? And they DO

In 2021, Hamas deliberately targeted Israel’s secretive Dimona nuclear reactor site. Iran has recently attacked Israeli areas close to that site. Russian drones have struck the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, and the defunct Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, though these strikes could have been unintentional.

Damaged Chernobyl dome - allows escape of radiation

I don’t want to bore you with the gloomy details – but these are some countries that have already developed sophisticated drones and missiles capable of devastating “our side’s” nuclear facilities – Iran, Russia, China, North Korea.

And the other subject of gloom is the diminished safety policies of the United States. Karl Grossman and Harvey Wasserman report:

“Trump’s “flood of executive orders on nuclear power have weakened or eliminated nuclear safety regulations – making nuclear power plants more dangerous than ever – and has expedited their being built.”

Bennet Ramberg in his 2024 book Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy, outlined the dangers posed by nuclear sites.

The Trump administration has not merely weakened nuclear safety regulation, but virtually abdicated from it. Even the nuclear lobby itself has recognised this, and encouraged private industry to address safety questions.
BUT – Futurism points out -( https://futurism.com/science-energy/nuclear-startups-safety ) “new reporting by Politico‘s energy publication E&E News found that several baby nuclear companies are avoiding requests to join one of the industry’s main safety organizations. The regulatory body, called the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), was formed in the fallout of the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. While not a government body, the INPO is a nonprofit nuclear watchdog, responsible for conducting plant inspections, sharing operational guidance between nuclear companies, and helping companies train nuclear personnel.

For a nuclear energy company, joining the INPO is completely voluntary, though every operator has — until now”

Nuclear experts are well aware of these new dangers. On April 13th on a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists panel, eminent experts discussed them. Rachel Bronson, Lars van Dassen, Laura S. H. Holgate, all closely tied to the International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA), went into the subject in some detail. They looked to the IAEA as the one body that might lead the world out of this perilous nuclear vulnerability mire. But they expressed anxiety, in view of the fact that that the IAEA is underfunded and under-resourced.

I am sorry – experts. But I can’t get out of my mind the fact that the IAEA has a dual mission. Its job is to ensure the safety of nuclear facilities, and to promote the peaceful nuclear industry.

Even these three very earnest experts acknowledge that the “peaceful” and the “military” nuclear industries are now irrevocably entwined. So, apart from the weakness and lack of funding for the IAEA, it is hopelessly caught up in its own conflict of interest.

27 March 2026 https://theaimn.net/titanic-misconceptions-that-things-will-be-ok/

Last night I watched a terrific programme on SBS world television. It was all about the sinking of the Titanic, covering so many aspects never shown on TV before. I was struck by the atmosphere on the ship, in the early hours of the sinking, with many people, particularly the rich upper-class passengers, taking the whole process as something not really serious, rather fun even. Of course, not all of them saw it that way. But enough of them - to be able to have quite a good party on the upper deck lounge, and to regard the messenger calling them up on deck as rather a nuisance, an ignorant lower-class person. And indeed, some people just refused to leave their (temporarily comfortable) beds, on such a cold night.

And here was I, trying to get my mind away form the rather scary world news. I suppose I’d have been better watching some “reality” show, or that good old Australian standby - sport.

Anyway, the thing was - the Titanic story showed how people are inclined not to take a critical event seriously, not to worry about it, until it’s too late.

And lo and behold, the same sort of thing is happening now. Today DW reports Iran war: Israel hits Iranian heavy water nuclear reactor. The good old news.com.au writes ‘Worst case scenario’: Wall St craters, oil surges as nuclear sites hit’. The fascinating part of this coverage, as shown by that last headline, is that the financial aspect is the first priority.. Yeah, I know that the world economy is important, and it’s not a good thing to have Wall St stocks going down, and investors “mashing the panic button”. I’m not saying that this is a trivial matter. It’s just that drone or missile strikes on a nuclear facility could be a helluva lot more serious than a drop on the stock exchange.

We don’t need an actual nuclear bombing to create a massive environmental and health catastrophe, a drone strike can do that job.

Both articles focus on this economic crisis, paying barely lip service to the fearful physical danger of a nuclear site being exploded, or even just damaged. Israeli air strikes hit a nuclear research reactor in Iran’s Khondab region, and a uranium processing plant in Yazd in Central Iran. The reports hastened to tell us there was no release of radioactive material. How reassuring! We can focus on the main issue - the share prices.

Questions come to mind. Will Iran retaliate by striking Israel’s Dimona reactor and other nuclear sites? How come it’s so terrible for Iran to have legally permitted nuclear research facilities, but apparently OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. Estimates of Israel’s nuclear warheads range from 90 to 200, but Israel “does not confirm or deny” its nuclear weaponry numbers. So that’s apparently OK.

Yes, we’re all anxious about our petrol and diesel prices, and naturally so. But the possible ramifications of these Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities add up to something more horrendous. I don’t want to rave on here about the health, environmental, social toll that will ensue, if the warring states decide to use this very convenient weaponry - no need to have your own expensive nuclear bomb, just send a few cheap drones to attack your enemy’s nuclear sites.

As with those rich passengers on the Titanic, it’s time that world leaders woke up.

Following my recovery from Catholicism, I never imagined that I would become a fan of the Pope. Perish the thought that I would ever sink back into believing those weird dogmas, and agreeing to Catholicism’s punishing rules about sexuality and abortion, and so forth.

Well, I haven’t sunk back that far – yet, but I just have to applaud Pope Leo. Under the guidance of Pope Leo, Catholic spokesmen have acknowledged that artificial intelligence is a useful tool, but warn against AI “overloading us with information to the point of paralysis.” Pope Leo XIV has given a tactful, but unmistakable warning against AI taking over control of our thinking. He recently advised the priests of Rome to use “their brains more” rather than AI when preparing homilies.

I feel that Leo’s predecessor, Pope Francis, set the course for this trend, in the condemnation of military attack as a way to resolve conflicts, and urging for human discussion and negotiation.

All good – you think? But is there something sinister about Pope Leo’s attitude to AI? Well the squillionaire Peter Thiel thinks so. He’s just given a series of lectures on Pope Leo’s doorstep in Rome. A critique of Peter Thiel’s ideas has been supplied, beautifully explained, in Australian Independent Media by Ricky Pann, also supplying this video:

It’s too much of a coincidence, that Mr Thiel has decided to make Rome the centre of his lecturing activities. The Pope has a huge worldwide influence, and his views on artificial intelligence have an impressive forcefulness and clarity. It’s pretty obvious that Thiel finds this a threat to the technological empire that he leads. And the Church recognises this – ‘Agent of chaos’ Peter Thiel is lecturing on the Antichrist at the Vatican’s doorstep.

You didn’t know that the technological geniuses who run our world can be not only so very scientifically knowledgeable, but also extremely religious. Scarily religious – I think. Thiel predicts a possible Caesar-Papist fusion, in which a tyrant – the Antichrist, joins up with government, in a sort of anti-science domination of the world. Thiel doesn’t actually see Pope Leo as the Antichrist (the Antichrist has to be young), but certainly worries about Pope Leo’s teachings.

Pope Leo is the first Pope with a formal degree in mathematics, and has called on mathematicians to be ”prophets of hope” and to integrate ethical responsibility into their technological advancements, particularly regarding artificial intelligence.

Oh dear, that’s very persuasive. Is Pope Leo indeed the Antichrist, the supporter of the facilitator of the coming Antichrist. Or is Peter Thiel a dangerous nutter?

10 March 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/why-should-trump-get-all-the-blame/

I’ve just read an article about planning nuclear power for a “post-Trump world” I’m wondering how many people are actually doing just that – planning for a “post Trump world.” Well, Donald Trump isn’t one of them. He’s got a pretty good plan for re-election in 2028. Never mind the fact that the USA Constitution forbids a President from having a third term in office. Heck, by 2028 there won’t be an American Constitution if Trump is still in office.

One way or another, I’d bet that Trump won’t be in office for that third term. By 2028, the apparently dim-witted American public might just not vote for Donald Trump, however colourful and entertaining he might be. Or the Republicans might have had enough, and somehow kicked him out in the meantime. Or some more dramatic events might have made him lose his grip on power – a nuclear war? He might even be in gaol – though I guess that’s a silly left-wing fantasy. Or even the seemingly immortally healthy Donald might get sick, or even die.

I just hope and pray that he is not assassinated. That would turn him into a martyr. A saint? As a recovered Catholic, I do think kindly of my old church. I just can’t imagine that current Catholicism could stomach the idea of Saint Donald Trump.

But anyway, I digress. And indeed this whole post is a digression. But to try to get to the point – what is wrong with the leaders of the Western world? It seems that only Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchéz has denounced the USA/Israel’s illegal attack on Iran. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney in January, briefly saw through Donald Trump, but by March, Carney had second thoughts, and fell into line in the conga dance behind him. The UK wavered and waffled, but ended up supporting the war. Confusion reigns in the EU. As for Australia – words fail me, as the ruling so-called Labor Party wriggles about, trying to deny that it supports the USA/Israel war. Twas so nice of Albanese to present Trump with a pretty little statue-thing of an AUKUS submarine.

It’s not just the war on Iran. It’s the support for Israel’s genocide. It’s the spectacle over two years, of politicians giving Trump standing ovations, smiling happily as they shake hands with this deranged, ignorant, sociopathic President of the USA. Surely they could manage mere politeness, and not a complete vision of fawning servility.

And when it all goes to shit, as it surely will, what will be their legacy? Will they be remembered as leaders of insight and integrity? Will they be remembered at all. Most likely, they’ll be gone and forgotten after the next election.

Let’s just remember, that pathetic lying confidence man, Trump, could not have done so much damage, so much harm, caused all that suffering, without their support.

I had in mind to look at Australia’s dangerous writers, in no particular hurry. But that’s changed. You see, the Australian Prime Minister, in his wisdom, decided to invite Isaac Herzog, the President of our great ally, Israel, on a state visit to Australia. After all, Herzog is not the real leader, not the Prime Minister of Israel. A United Nations commission of inquiry found Israel guilty of genocide. The International Criminal Court found Prime Minister Netanyahu guilty of war crimes. But even if you do take any notice of those radical organisations, probably President Isaac Herzog didn’t know anything about the alleged atrocities in Gaza.

Fortunately, the Australian press takes a moderate view of all this. P.M. Albanese’s invitation to Herzog is intended to unite Australians, and give comfort after the massacre of Jews at Bondi Beach. (What? The invitation was sent long before that massacre? There is no need to bring logic into this.)

Ed. note. I wrote that the invitation had come before the Bondi massacre, and I was wrong in this. Nevertheless, it’s a tragic truth that the Bondi massacre has allowed the media to obscure the fact that the Australian government has been under continual pressure from the Zionist lobby.

In the circumstances, it’s important to avoid a trouble-making bunch of Australian writers who are likely to stir up criticism of Isaac Herzog. And let’s all be friends.

Now, you already know that Australia’s Caitlin Johnstone is an evil witch (and terribly rude, too). But there are plenty of other equally dangerous writers. I know, because even some of my family and friends have warned me about them, as have other very “reputable” people. There are so many evil ones like her. I don’t know where to begin.

A new threat is Michael West, and his string of collaborators:

Australians have been pretty well protected. The Adelaide Festival Board cancelled Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah‘s talk, planned for the Adelaide Writers Festival in March. Quite rightly and properly, as Dr Abdel-Fattah, though born in Australia, is of Palestinian heritage, and her books take an extremely pro-Muslim view, and advocate for Palestinian rights and identity.

Indeed, our government is pretty good at saving us from evil writers. And dedicated pressure groups can have a good influence on our media. So, for example, we have been protected from the wicked influence of Chris Hedges. The chief executive of Australia’s National Press Club, Maurice Reilly, cancelled Hedges’ scheduled talk on the Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists. The U.S. Press Club banned him, too. All very proper, as Hedges was insulting our friends, the Israeli government. But that’s not all. Chris Hedges is just so gloomy about everything – especially corporate coup, death of the liberal class, and the rise of fascism. We really should not tolerate such extreme bias and negativity. Why, Hedges even condemns the happiness industries. He’s so awful – hates everything that Western culture holds dear.

Rex Patrick is another Australian writer to be avoided, obviously unpatriotic as he trashes the idea of AUKUS submarines.

Australia’s boast is that “we are young and free”? Well, not exactly free, when it comes to press freedom, as we have no constitutional or explicit legal protection for press freedom. But that’s all to the good – keeping us focussed on our most respected traditional interests – sport, entertainment, celebrities, and food.

On the international scene, there’s a spate of writing by extremists.You know straight away to avoid people like Jeffrey Sachs, with his wide-ranging way out views. Ralph Nader – a long time pest, obstructing progress. Eva Bartlett is particularly suspect, as she criticises both Israel and Ukraine. Juan Cole has extremist views on the Middle East. Craig Mokhiber is a complete ratbag, waffling on about human rights. Les Leopold is a ratbag on economics and workers’ rights. Koohan Paik-Mander is exceptionally dangerous, too, being Asian, and female.

Look, there’s lots more of them. I’ve barely scraped the surface. But my advice to you (especially right now, with the imminent arrival of our friend Isaac Herzog), is to be calm, be complacent, stick to the mainstream media, and avoid those awful journalists whose only aim is to upset you.