MINING - Uranium (or thorium).
MILLING – transportation to millworks, taking the raw ore and converting it to “yellowcake” uranium ore.
CONVERSION - Construction of the uranium conversion facility, transportation of the uranium “yellowcake” to a conversion facility, dissolving it to form UF6, conversion of “yellowcake” to UF6.
ENRICHMENT - Construction of the uranium enrichment facility, construction of the cylinders used to transport the UF6, transportation of the UF6 to the enrichment facility, enrichment of the uranium.
FUEL PELLETS - Formation of uranium fuel pellets, transportation of the uranium fuel pellets.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION - Construction of the nuclear power plant, with its massive amounts of concrete and steel, which will take several years of using heavy construction equipment to complete. Keep in mind that both steel and concrete production are carbon-intensive.
SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS - Construction of the necessary infrastructure to support the nuclear power plant (roads, transmission lines, barge canals, etc.)
GENERATORS - Use of heavy-duty diesel generators to run the cooling system during routine maintenance, refueling, shut downs resulting from increased summertime water temperatures, any SCRAM, and power outage emergencies.
WASTE STORAGE - Building RadWaste storage facilities, building radwaste storage containers and transporting the waste to the storage facilities. Transfering RadWaste from one geographic location to another, across the country, or the ocean.
WASTE PROCESSING - Building reprocessing facilities, transporting the radwaste to the reprocessing facility, reprocessing the radwaste, building storage for the radwaste generated by reprocessing.
WASTE INCINERATION - Building radwaste incineration facilities, transporting the waste to the incineration facility, incinerating the RadWaste.
WASTE VITRIFICATION - Building vitrification plants, transporting waste to vitrification plants, vitrifying the RadWaste involving heating the materials to very high temperatures.
MONITORING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE - carbon pollution generated by monitoring and guarding the radwaste for eternity.
DECOMISSIONING AND DECONTAMINATION -decontaminating and demolishing the nuclear plants, reactors, enrichment facilities, and other support infrastructure.
ACCIDENTS - mitigation and clean-up efforts on nuclear accidents-huge carbon contribution.
DAMAGED REACTORS AND ACCIDENTS - Building sarcophagus structures around failed nuclear power facilities. Monitoring, securing and periodically re-entombing failed nuclear power facilities for all eternity.
There are more nuclear carbon-footprint considerations than the ones stated here, but this list is a good general start. No one source has actually calculated the carbon footprint for nuclear energy taking into consideration all of the above sources of carbon emissions.": https://www.arafel.co.uk/2023/03/depleted-uranium-use-is-nuclear-war.html
It is also true that the production of nuclear weapons (because -as we have examined repeatedly on Arafel-, it is in order to produce nuclear weapons that sovereign states feel able to spend the vast sums they do on -so-called-, civilian/commercial nuclear power plants), is hugely and disproportionally expensive and in-fact represents only a loss-leader to our totalitarian systems, quote;
"Britain’s first new nuclear plant in a generation at the Hinkley Point C site will face further delay, at a cost of €2.5bn to the French utility company EDF.
EDF said the first reactor at the site in Somerset will begin operations in 2030, a year later than planned – almost 13 years after construction work began – after a series of delays to the project.
The latest delay will wipe almost £3bn from the French state-owned developer’s accounts and take the total cost of building the nuclear plant to £35bn, or almost double the estimate of £18bn when it was given the green light in 2016. However, the final cost will be far higher once inflation is taken into account as EDF gives its cost estimates in 2015 prices.": https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/20/hinkley-point-c-delayed-to-2030-as-costs-climb-to-35bn
It should be self-evident that if we are spending such vast sums on nuclear power we cannot possibly be making the same investment in sustainable energy production (Nb. anyone who thinks nuclear power is a "sustainable" industry is seriously deluded think of the amount of waste storage -and the length of time such storage will be necessary-, should we only continue production for the next 50 years).
"Thou Shalt not Make a Machine in the Likeness of a Human Mind!" Dune, Frank Herbert
Herbert's admonition rings very true here for when I inquired of Google as to a direct comparison between the investment profile and expenditure of the U.K government with regard to nuclear power with that of (so-called), renewables both the "AI Overview" and the source material suggested simply obfuscated the issue by not providing figures for that into the alternative industry concentrating only on the proposed expenditure on nuclear projects whilst pointedly avoiding a direct comparison with planned expenditure on renewables. This is a very common occurrence with regard to the nuclear industry whose data and public profile are policed more assiduously than (almost?), any other, quote;
"I highly recommend that you follow the link to: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/security/security-of-nuclear-facilities-and-material for you will discover that whilst conventional strikes against nuclear power plants are at least mentioned (although hardly discussed at any length), there is still no mention made of nuclear attacks.
Those of us who have studied these issues are, I'm afraid, very far from surprised though, in-fact there is an aphorism within the anti-nuclear community that informs one that; "You can rely on the nuclear industry for one thing and one thing only lies!"": https://www.arafel.co.uk/2026/02/the-ninth-circle-pt2-truth-about.html
Quote; "AI Overview
UK investment in the energy sector is currently characterized by a "golden age of nuclear" policy, aimed at boosting energy security alongside massive, rapid investment in renewable energy
. While renewables like wind and solar have seen costs plummet—becoming much cheaper to deploy than nuclear—nuclear power is being funded to provide consistent "baseload" power, which renewable sources cannot do without storage.
Investment Comparison: Nuclear vs. Sustainable Energy
Investment Focus & Strategy: The UK government has committed £14.2 billion to the construction of Sizewell C, aiming for it to power six million homes. A further £2.5 billion has been allocated to develop Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Conversely, investments in renewables have driven their share of electricity generation from 3% in 2000 to 42% in 2022.
Costs: Nuclear projects are notoriously expensive, with Hinkley Point C estimated at £22-£23 billion and Sizewell C potentially costing up to £38 billion. In contrast, the costs of renewable energy have decreased significantly, making them generally more cost-competitive, though they require additional investment in system flexibility.
Economic Impact: The nuclear industry generated £6.1 billion for the UK economy in 2021 and employs over 64,000 people. Nuclear jobs are often high-skilled and long-term, with workers receiving 33% higher compensation than those in the wind and solar sectors.
Environmental Impact: Both are considered low-carbon. Nuclear emits 10-15g/CO2 equivalent per kWh, which is competitive with wind and solar. However, nuclear faces challenges regarding waste management, while renewable energy, particularly offshore wind and tidal, is heavily promoted for sustainability.
Operational Reliability: Nuclear provides a consistent baseload, making it more reliable than intermittent renewables. However, nuclear projects often suffer from significant construction delays and cost overruns, unlike renewables."
 |
| Hinkley Point |
The operator, Hokkaido Electric Power (Hepco), said there was no danger of a radiation leak and there were no injuries during the incident at the Tomari plant.
Two other reactors at Tomari were operating normally, it said.
The Kyodo news agency said investigators found damage to electrical wiring and suspected foul play, but the operator was unavailable to comment.
The fire came eight days after an earthquake caused radiation leaks at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant - which generates the most electricity of nuclear power stations worldwide.
International inspectors were due to visit the Kashiwazaki plant in the aftermath of the quake, in which 400 drums of low-level radioactive waste fell over, with about 40 losing their lids and spilling their contents.
The spillage was one of more than 50 malfunctions at the plant in the immediate aftermath of the quake. The operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), was criticised for failing to deal with the blaze and for initially under-reporting the scale of the radioactive leaks.
The Kashiwazaki plant has been closed indefinitely and Japan's 54 other nuclear power stations have been ordered to carry out emergency safety checks*.": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/24/nuclear.japan
*Italics mine. Nb. This four years before the Fukushima disaster!
During war time, talking points and propaganda reflexively fly in every direction, but the Trump administration still hasn’t been able to land on one coherent answer.
Some contradict each other, and some contradict Donald Trump himself. Some – delivered hours apart by senior officials – are flatly incompatible.": https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/07/trump-rationale-war-iran-story
"MOSSAD'S
“Clothing
Shop Network”,
this report explains, was originated in the early 1980’s by one of
the most secretive billionaires in American named Leslie Wexner and whose father (Harry
Wexner—changed from Hagan Wexelstein)
emigrated to the United States in the late 1930’s from/the former
Soviet Union.
The
“Clothing
Shop Network” name
itself, this report continues, was derived from Leslie Wexner being
one of America’s top clothiers—and who owns the US-based fashion
retailers L.Brands and Victoria's Secret.": https://www.arafel.co.uk/2016/10/the-horrible-cant-possibly-be-true.html
Quote; "Today Drop Site News is publishing a landmark investigation about the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s unrelenting assault on Gaza by British journalist Owen Jones. His report is based on interviews with 13 journalists and other BBC staffers who offer remarkable insights into how senior figures within the BBC’s news operation skewed stories in favor of Israel’s narratives and repeatedly dismissed objections registered by scores of staffers who, throughout the past 14 months, demanded that the network uphold its commitment to impartiality and fairness. Jones’s investigation of the BBC has three main components: a deeply reported look into the internal complaints from BBC journalists, a quantitative assessment of how the BBC characterizes the year-long siege on Gaza, and a review of the histories of the people behind the coverage—and, in particular, one editor, Raffi Berg": https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-biased-coverage
"..the
Obama administration confirmed "that it is reserving the
right to use nuclear weapons against Iran" for its
non-compliance with US demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent)
nuclear weapons program. (U.S.
Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat - IPS
ipsnews.net,
April 23, 2010). The Obama administration has also intimated that it
would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli
attack on Iran. (Ibid). Israel has also drawn up its own "secret plans" to bomb Iran with
tactical nuclear weapons:
"Israeli
military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be
enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment
facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete
and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would
be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United
States declined to intervene, senior sources said."
(Revealed:
Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran - Times Online,
January 7, 2007) Obama's
statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea
are consistent with post 9/11 US nuclear weapons doctrine, which
allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional
war theater.*
Through
a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of
"authoritative" nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld
as an instrument of peace, namely a means to combating "Islamic
terrorism" and instating Western style "democracy" in
Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for "battlefield
use". They are slated to be used against Iran and Syria in the
next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside
conventional weapons.
"Administration
officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a
credible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea]
Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to
be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize
this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to
be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive,
thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective
as a deterrent." (Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke
Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
The
preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear
weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear
warheads (e.g. B61.11), with an explosive capacity between one third
to six times a Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 is
the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU
113. or
Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28.
It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker
buster bomb. (See Michel
Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html,
see
also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris)
. While the US does not contemplate the use of strategic
thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel's nuclear arsenal
is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and
could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel's Jericho‐III
missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran
would be within reach." Go
to: https://www.alainet.org/en/active/40327
for
full and extensive article.
*Italics/underline mine."..
the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb is a "dial-a-yield" weapon, allowing the military to adjust its explosive yield before launch
. This redesigned bomb, intended for both strategic and tactical use, features variable yield technology with a range of approximately 0.3 to 50 kilotons of TNT. It is designed to be highly accurate.
Key Details About the B61-12:
Variable Yield: Operators can select from multiple yield options to tailor the destructive force for specific targets.
Purpose: As a modern iteration of the B61 series, it is designed for precision, potentially lowering collateral damage compared to higher-yield, older weapons.
Capability: It is designed for external carriage by high-speed aircraft.
Testing: The B61-12 has undergone extensive testing, including with the F-15E Strike Eagle, confirming its functionality, arming, and targeting capabilities.
The B61-12 is part of a broader U.S. nuclear modernization effort, with some debate regarding its impact on non-proliferation*."
*Italics mine.
Cut Throats Walking the Razor's Edge
It seems it was not in the interests of the corporate elite to make terms with Iran regarding its nuclear program, quote;
The JCPOA ended some of the sanctions on Iran while suspending others, subject to waivers. These include waivers of oil sanctions implemented in January 2012, which require periodic re-certification. Throughout 2017 Trump contemplated not re-certifying, and thus effectively pulling out of the deal.[25] According to Jarrett Blanc of the Obama administration, since the JCPOA is not a treaty but an agreement between several countries, it has no formal provisions for withdrawal, but a member of the deal could stop complying with its obligations.[25]
Following Trump's denial of the deal, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, said the JCPOA was a firm decision and that no single country could break it. She proposed a "collective process" to preserve the deal, saying, "This deal is not a bilateral agreement ... The international community, and the European Union with it, has clearly indicated that the deal is, and will, continue to be in place."[26] French President Emmanuel Macron warned Trump not to withdraw from the deal, and told German magazine Der Spiegel that doing so "would open the Pandora's box. There could be war."[27] The Global Times, a Chinese newspaper, wrote that America's reputation as a major power would be undermined in the eyes of the world if it reneged on a deal simply because of a transition in government.[28]
Political influences and decisions
Some reports suggest that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "Iran Lied*" presentation influenced the withdrawal.[29][30] A little more than a week after Netanyahu's presentation, Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the deal.[31][30] He announced the withdrawal during a speech at the White House on May 8, 2018, saying, "the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction: that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program."[32]": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
*It's possible I don't trust nuclear powered states any further than I can run away from them, however, proportionality is certainly an issue here if, as all the evidence suggests, Israel has already facilitated the use of its own nuclear weapons by supplying them to the Saudis under the (get this), "Good Neighbour Policy" and allowing them to be used on the poor Yemenis (no coincidence of-course that the Yemeni Houthis are supported by the Iranian regime).
I strongly urge you to view the video evidence for yourselves:
Nb. The type of pixilation seen on much of this footage is a result of ionizing radiation interacting with the technology of digital capture, quote;
Quote; "AI Overview
Atomic blasts (and high radiation environments) cause a "static-like" pixelation or "dancing white dots" effect on digital cameras (digicams) because high-energy ionizing radiation (gamma rays, particles) hits the image sensor directly.
How Radiation Causes Pixelation:
Sensor Saturation: Digital camera sensors (CMOS/CCD) detect light by converting photons into electrical charge. High-energy radiation acts like an intense, invisible light, overwhelming individual pixels and forcing them to maximum brightness, creating white or coloured spots on the image.
"Hot Pixels" and Noise: The radiation causes "noise" that resembles static, where the intensity of the noise increases with the strength of the radiation field.
Bit Flips: In extreme environments, the gamma radiation can cause "bit flips" in the camera's memory, corrupting the image file or creating random, distorted pixels.
Visible Tracks: If particles hit the sensor at an angle, they can create short, bright streaks or lines, rather than just single-pixel dots.
Chernobyl/Nuclear Sites: Footage taken inside high-radiation areas, such as the Chernobyl sarcophagus, frequently shows this dancing, pixelated static because the radiation is constant and intense.
Nuclear Test Films: Early nuclear test films often appear black and white because they used specialized, heavily filtered, and slow-acting film to prevent the intense light of the blast from destroying the image (or the camera).
Space/High Altitude: Similar effects are seen in cameras in space due to cosmic rays hitting the sensors.
This phenomenon is not a failure of the digital zoom, but a physical interaction between ionizing radiation and the camera's imaging technology."
Profiling
Quote; "Explaining
Israel's aberrant behaviour is not that difficult either, spoiled
children who are rewarded when they behave like mavericks develop an
inflated opinion of themselves and
they make mistakes.
No matter how hard the Deep State attempts to obscure the use of
tactical nukes by the "Israel ibn Saud" alliance (incl.
indulging in the wholesale breach of the human rights of the people
of Yemen by trapping them within a war zone the Powers that Be don't
want the prying eyes or open ears of aid agency workers or
journalists to penetrate -an apparently somewhat desperate and
panicked reaction-), the truth will out but let's hope it does so
before another and bigger theatre of war is opened in either Korea or
Iran and the initial flash of the Yemen strike is obscured by the fog
of a larger nuclear war.
There is however a more subtle
but equally plausible narrative, clearly the opinion analysts and
manufacturers (both inside and outside), of The State Dept. have been
exercised by the questions (and this for some time); "Does the
public (both at home and abroad), now consider a limited nuclear
exchange (or the asymmetrical use of such weapons in specific
circumstances), to be a different animal to that of a full strategic
exchange?" ..(and), .. "Can we make the limited
"battlefield" (a somewhat loose term as applied here), use
of lower yield nuclear weapons acceptable?" So perhaps the PtB
thought; "We'll let the Israelis drop one of theirs on Yemen and
see if anyone jumps!" Outlandish? Not really when one considers
just how much time and energy has gone into both the continuing
Korean War and preparing for possible conflict with Iran, to put it
in cold economic terms; "It's worth a lot more than are a few
more dead or outraged civilians in one of the poorest countries in
the world" (that's "to them" of-course). Maybe it's a
bit of both though (as usual in-fact when it comes to U.S foreign
policy), with the right-hand not really knowing what the left-hand is
doing.
Politicking is just that,
however, international
law states
that if the Saudis and Israelis dropped a tactical nuke on Yemen this
was a criminal act and a case should be brought against them and
heard under the fullest of international and public scrutinies.": https://www.arafel.co.uk/2018/03/update-on-unofficial-nuclear.html
Alamagordo
This is not the first time that nuclear proliferation has driven a clandestine international agenda either, quote;
"..it is necessary to examine the chronology of the events which lead to the first Gulf conflict. Saddam Hussein (a former ally of The West), had undoubtedly been attempting to develop a viable nuclear weapon prior to “Desert Storm”, his reactors (with the French technicians still in them!), were bombed by the trigger happy Israelis precisely in order to prevent him from doing so. America (“as usual” terrified of their Frankensteinian creation and anxious to secure the oil supply they were being denied by his regime), were at that time being thwarted in their ambitions by an international community which was far less subservient than the “United Nations” which are now living far more deeply in the shadow of the post Yugoslavian conflicts effect on the notion of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of nation states that has so coloured international relations in recent decades (esp. with regard to The Middle East). Even George Bush senior had been unable to break the deadlock, however if one can “suspend disbelief” one can imagine that both The Pentagon and the CIA had been devising strategies with which to remove such obstacles to action (of which Mr. Bush was of-course fully aware), one of which was to provoke or “encourage” an attack on one of his oil rich neighbours (something that Saddam would “jump at” at the time in order to refill his treasury following Iraq’s bloody and costly war with Iran). In order to facilitate this it would be necessary to somehow deceive Saddam as to America’s true interests in the region as not even he would risk direct conflict with the most powerful military machine on the planet. Such a deception would however risk showing America’s hand to the international community in a way that even Bush senior felt unable to justify and therefore these plans remained shelved until such time as the political climate became more favourable. Around this time however certain documents were stolen from the United States which were to provide precisely the right impetus with which to change the weather. It seems that although America had secured the necessary technical documents which would enable one to produce a viable fusion weapon (something Saddam did not have the industrial or financial ware-withal to do in any-case), the original Alamogordo trinity test specifications for a fission bomb were not held under such tight security and were stolen (“rumour has it” by an Asian “freelancer”), and then sold to the Iraqi regime. Bush senior then “green-lighted” the operation that would lead to “Desert Storm” (go to: http://rense.com/general69/41.htm “How Bush Tricked Saddam into Invading Kuwait “The April Glaspie Interview”). As you can see this information is extant (thank you Adel Darwish and Gregory Alexander –“Unholy Babylon” Gollancz 1991-).": https://www.arafel.co.uk/2013/09/desert-storm-saddam-bomb-and-almagordo.html
Paper Tigers?
The problem with Pentagon Paper Mentalities though is that they are not paper-tigers! They are extraordinarily dangerous and should they be allowed to continue (esp. beyond any "laissez-faire" sell-by-date), they invariably dish out severe maulings to those who ignore their presence and a nuclear mauling is something that should terrify all of us, furthermore, as is understood by many, any open nuclear confrontation on any scale will irreversibly change the nature of both national and international socio-political landscapes. That this might further enable oppression (esp. within the nuclear armed states), is a factor we cannot afford to overlook when attempting to prevent such an eventuality. "Qui bono?"
