Sunday, February 1, 2026

Exposing the Big AI Small Modular Reactor Nuke Power scam: first clean up all the pollution and destruction already caused

 "The mayor and airport chief of Denver, Colorado, chose the 80th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima to host a news conference proposing to spend $1.5 million on a small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) at the Denver International Airport.
Plans were then paused amid the uproar from local city council members, area residents, reporters, and environmental advocates. The community was not consulted before the decision to launch the feasibility study. Constituents questioned the huge expenditure on a technology that: is not commercially operating anywhere; has a track record of enormous cost overruns; has no assessment of the draw on local water or other resources; and is guaranteed to generate radioactive waste that must be stored on site for eons with no long-term solution.
The nearby Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge and Superfund site represents one toxic legacy already carried by this community."
 "....Its SMR-300s would generate 2 to 30 times more radioactive waste, per unit of electricity generated, due to loss of economy of scale, according to President Obama's former NRC chair, Allison Macfarlane, and former U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board chair, Rodney Ewing. PNP's indoor wet storage pool still holds around two-thirds, or more, of the irradiated nuclear fuel on-site, at risk of a catastrophic fire that could be worse than a reactor core meltdown.....Just tapping a very small percentage of the off-shore wind power potential available to Michigan on the Great Lakes would far surpass the 800 MW-e that a restarted PNP would provide, and would also far surpass the additional nuclear megawattage that two SMR-300s at PNP would provide, and would also far surpass the nuclear megawattage one or more SMR-300s at Big Rock Point would provide. This off-shore wind power would also avoid reactor core meltdowns, radioactive waste fires, radioactivity releases from "routine reactor operations," radioactive leaks, spills, and contamination, radioactive waste generation, thermal wastewater, and toxic chemical
releases at all these atomic reactors, and would do so cost- and time-effectively, compared to SMR new builds, and even the PNP restart scheme. "
https://nukewatchinfo.org/nuclear-power-cant-survive-much-less-slow-climate-disruption/
"In a free market, the US Price Anderson Act would be repealed. The act provides limited liability insurance to reactor operators in the event of a loss-of-coolant, or otsher radiation catastrophe. The nuclear industry would have to get insurance on the open market like all other industrial operations. This would break their bank, since major insurers would only sell such a policy at astronomical rates, if at all."
"The US Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) would also be repealed. NWPA is the government’s pledge to take custody of and assume liability for the industry’s radioactive waste. Without NWPA the industry would have to pay to contain, isolate and manage its waste for the 1-million-year danger period. The long-term cost would zero the industry’s portfolio in a quick “correction.”
The claim that being against nuclear is based on irrational fear is a misrepresentation of our current environmental crisis from nuclear power. My dad was the lawyer for the state nuclear utility when the Attorney General wanted to regulate nuclear routine emissions at a stricter than federal standard. My dad won his case and so Monticello set a national precedence - meaning nuclear power is really controlled by "military intelligence." What the public doesn't realize is that not only is that a cancer alley increase around nuclear power plants from the tritium "routine releases" but the fuel rods are aging out. 
"Xcel eventually acknowledged that volume of the leak, from an old corroded underground pipe, was 829,000 gallons, and that the groundwater plume of reactor cooling water — some of which would later reach the Mississippi River — had a radioactive footprint of some fourteen curies of tritium [4] — a very large amount. (For a reference, the 1979 partial reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island released an estimated 15 curies of gaseous radioactive iodine-131 to the Pennsylvania atmosphere. Other radioactive materials went into the Susquehanna River.)"
"Xcel’s 829,000-gallon leak was always a direct threat to drinking water because — as the company’s own 2023 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report states on page 13 [4] — “It is assumed groundwater continuously flows to the river…” The Mississippi is the drinking water source for 20 million people, including Minneapolis, St. Paul and their surrounding suburbs 37 miles downstream from the leaky reactor..... This is to say 388 billion picocuries of tritium were sent floating around Minnesota’s Wright and Sherburne Counties. This under-reported and unplanned, emergency stop-gap response poses some risk for the surrounding residents who breath. Xcel’s estimated leak of 14 curies of tritium will contaminate the moving groundwater for a very long time. Its radioactive half-life is 12.3 years, so the tritium will persist for about 12 decades while it decays (to helium-3). Once tritium contaminates water, it is impossibly expensive to remove. "
I first got arrested in 1994 protesting against the storage of nuclear waste in a native American reservation on the Mississippi river. What people don't realize - due to environmental racism - is that most of the uranium mining has been done on native reservations. I was personally shown a stream in South Dakota at Pine Ridge reservation - a stream polluted by uranium mining. Monticello has recently covered up their leaking of tritium into the Mississippi river.
https://nuclearfreemississippi.wordpress.com/
"The Center for Disease Control (CDC) public health data analyzed by Mangano identifies cancer mortality over three time periods in counties that host 16 of the nation’s oldest nuclear power reactors. Mangano’s analysis compares CDC reported cancer mortality in host counties with state-wide cancer mortality averages. The bottom-line results of this analysis are presented on the map of “Excess Cancer Deaths” below. The first time period of Mangano’s analysis, 1968-1978, establishes the baseline for comparison and accounts for an initial cancer latency period, as the first of the 16 oldest nuclear reactors came on-line in 1969....Every two months in Wright and Sherburne counties [on Minnesota], cancer kills three more people as a result of radiation released into the environment by Monticello nuclear operations. "
Unless someone actually sincerely goes out of there way to research the hazards that have already happened - for example the two-headed babies from depleted uranium weapons made as byproducts of nuclear power - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqlMrjMuFwI 
then the risks being considered are not realistic. Depleted uranium weapons have been made out of Minnesota also and I got arrested protesting at Alliant Techsystems that had been headquartered in Hopkins (as a spin off from Honeywell)...
I recommend going to "Nukewatch" out of Luke WI run by John LaForge - https://nukewatchinfo.org/weekly-column/
I got arrested with John LaForge while we climbed the Navy's Project ELF one-way first strike nuclear weapons communication system with trident nuclear subs. 
https://www.change.org/p/close-down-the-monticello-nuclear-reactor-on-the-mississippi-river
Instead of promoting nukes - why not be an activist to try to first clean up the mess and damage already done by nukes? I can assure you that the reason people promote nukes as "clean energy" is because of our "religion of technology" as the true religion on Earth now. I recommend reading former MIT History Professor David F. Noble's 1996 book of that title, "Religion of Technology" for details. 
Consequently, over 100 utilities, industry suppliers, and reactor developers, organized by the Nuclear Energy Institute, wrote to Congress April 30 demanding retention of the tax credits which keep alive dreams of new reactor construction.

The credits are essential to nuclear’s economic future, the letter says, and are “critical to strengthening U.S. energy security” ⸺ meaning the industry cannot compete any more, and its CEO’s have said so.

Speaking in New York City on Nov. 27, 2013, World Bank President Dr. Jim Yong Kim said, “The World Bank Group does not engage in providing support for nuclear power. … we don’t do nuclear energy.”

The U.S. Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism concluded in 2009 that governments should help stop nuclear weapons proliferation by “discouraging … the use of financial incentives in the promotion of civil nuclear power.”

John Rowe, a former chairman and CEO of the nuclear power-heavy Exelon Corp. said “unequivocally,” in March 2012, “that new [reactors] don’t make any sense right now…. It just isn’t economic, and it’s not economic within a foreseeable time frame.”

Even the former CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Marvin Fertel, told Scientific American in 2012, “We won’t build large numbers of new nuclear in the U.S. in the near term. Today, you ought to build gas.” And Bill Johnson, CEO of Progress Energy, said in the same article, “Nuclear can’t compete today.” In 2011, Siemens Corp. declared that, following Germany’s decision to close all 17 of its reactors by 2022 (all built by Siemens), the company would stop building new reactors anywhere in the world. “The chapter for us is closed,” said Chief Executive Peter Löscher.

Calling new reactors “too expensive,” Jon Wellinghoff, a former chair of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said in 2009, “We may not need any, ever,” adding that renewables “like wind, solar and biomass would be able to provide enough energy to meet base load capacity and future demand.”