SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Linda Gunter, Beyond Nuclear, 301-455-5655 (mobile); 301.270.2209 (o)
Nuclear energy is a complex subject that can be difficult to communicate to the general public. However, this challenge does not excuse the deliberate omission of known scientific facts, or the re-framing of information to sell a pro-nuclear point of view that would be undermined by the inclusion of such key evidence. Unfortunately, this appears to be the case in Robert Stone's new film, Pandora's Promise, which releases theatrically next month.
Nuclear energy is a complex subject that can be difficult to communicate to the general public. However, this challenge does not excuse the deliberate omission of known scientific facts, or the re-framing of information to sell a pro-nuclear point of view that would be undermined by the inclusion of such key evidence. Unfortunately, this appears to be the case in Robert Stone's new film, Pandora's Promise, which releases theatrically next month.
Therefore, after extensive research, Beyond Nuclear has published a new paper -- Pandora's False Promises: busting the pro-nuclear propaganda. We also provide a two-page synopsis. Pandora's False Promises delivers point by point facts and numerous scientific references that correct the misconceptions put forward by this film and by pro-nuclear advocates generally.
We would take no issue with an individual such as Stone arriving legitimately at a point of view with which we disagree. However, Stone apparently made little or no effort to seek information from (and certainly not to include in his film) the leading scientific and medical experts and researchers on many of the issues he covers.
By deferring only to those who support his pro-nuclear thesis, and in many cases whose credentials on the topic are questionable, Stone has made his case while steering well clear of many inconvenient truths. We therefore urge any viewing and review of this film to be done with a great deal of skepticism and with the facts at hand.
"When Pandora's Promise was first publicized, it claimed to feature 'former leaders of the anti-nuclear movement,' which got our attention," said Linda Gunter of Beyond Nuclear who has authored several documents examining the claims made in the film and in its publicity. "But when we looked at who was actually featured, we found that virtually all roads led to The Breakthrough Institute whose personnel appear prominently in the film and none of whom ever 'led' the anti-nuclear movement."
More significantly, in researching many of the assertions made in the film, viewed by several Beyond Nuclear associates at public screenings prior to the film's theatrical release next month, it became clear that facts were not a priority.
"The film apparently repeats some of the more popular myths about nuclear power that sound good only if you look no deeper," said Gunter. "The protagonists evidently chose to over-look sound science in favor of slick sound bites. It seemed time to set the record straight."
The Beyond Nuclear report seeks to address many of the common misconceptions about the alleged "positives" of nuclear power by analyzing and citing the enormous wealth of scientific, medical and environmental evidence and research that has been conducted in this area. The study is intended to serve as a guide well beyond the shelf-life of Pandora's Promise, given the on-going efforts by the nuclear industry and its backers to resuscitate an industry whose economics and safety record threaten to assign it to extinction.
"Of course we hear the usual accusations about our having our own anti-nuclear agenda," Gunter added. "Yes, we are anti-nuclear. But we did not arrive at this position by talking only to people with scant scientific credentials who espouse an anti-nuclear point of view; or to scientists with a vested interest in promoting nuclear technology. We arrived at it because when you review the overwhelming scientific, medical and environmental evidence, it is painfully obvious that nuclear power, from the beginning of the uranium fuel chain to the end, harms human and animal health and the environment."
Pandora's False Promises looks at a full range of areas including: the discredited World Health Organization cancer fatality predictions after Chernobyl, which suppressed the agency's own findings, and its oversight by the nuclear-promoting International Atomic Energy Agency; the multitude of studies -- as well as the example of Germany -- that show the capability of renewable energy and energy efficiency to displace by 100% not only nuclear but also fossil fuels; the serious safety flaws and proliferation dangers, combined with high costs, that make so-called "new generation" or "fast" reactors not only extremely dangerous but commercially unviable; the impracticality of bringing on nuclear power, which takes years -- and billions of dollars -- to build, in time to address the climate crisis; and that France, despite its 80% reliance on nuclear-generated electricity, still stores more than 90% of its radioactive waste with no capacity to "recycle" it.
For more information, see the Beyond Nuclear web page, Pandora's False Promises.
Download the two-page summary and full report or request a hard copy from info@beyondnuclear.org or by calling 301-270.2209.
Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic.
(301) 270-2209"Talk to or read energy experts—people who focus on the physical side of the oil crisis—and their hair is on fire."
Gas prices in the US have surged to a four-year high, and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is warning that the worst is likely yet to come.
Amid a Tuesday projection from AAA that average US gas prices had hit $4 per gallon for the first time since 2022, Krugman published an analysis of the petroleum market in which he projected that the price of oil will go even higher in the coming weeks as the global economy runs into supply shortages caused by President Donald Trump's war against Iran.
Krugman argued that oil price hikes have actually been tame so far because physical supplies have remained steady in recent weeks, as tankers that had already passed through the Strait of Hormuz before the start of the war have continued making scheduled deliveries.
That "grace period," as Krugman described it, is about to end as speculative market prices run into the hard realities of physical shortages.
What this fundamentally means, wrote Krugman, is "you should be alarmed."
"Once the crisis gets physical, there will no longer be room for jawboning the markets," Krugman wrote. "Since the war began there have been several occasions on which Donald Trump has been able to talk prices down by asserting that meaningful negotiations are underway... but that won’t work once the oil runs out. So prices will have to rise."
As for how far prices will go up, Krugman calculated that with only medium disruption to global oil production and medium demand elasticity, the price of oil would rise to $152 per barrel, which would push US gas prices well over $4.50 per gallon.
Making matters worse, Krugman found that it wouldn't take much additional disruption to push the price of oil into worse-case scenarios where it would top $200 per barrel.
"If oil really does go to $200 or more, it’s all too easy to envisage a full-blown global economic crisis, with an inflation surge and quite likely a recession," Krugman commented. "Ever since this war began I’ve noticed a sharp divide in sentiment among experts. Finance and macroeconomics experts have been relatively sanguine about our ability to ride out this storm. But talk to or read energy experts—people who focus on the physical side of the oil crisis—and their hair is on fire."
Petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan on Tuesday highlighted the major increases in the price of diesel fuel since the start of the Iran war, which could add even more pain to the US economy in the form of higher shipping costs for goods.
"Can't overstate the impact that's coming down the pipeline to truckers, farmers, logistics, and beyond," De Haan wrote in a social media post. "The US economy runs on diesel with several states setting new all-time highs for diesel, while others are seeing largest monthly increases of all time."
De Haan also posted a chart highlighting the states with the biggest diesel price increases since late February, and it showed swing states Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina faced the largest surges, with prices up more than 57% in just one month in each state.
Of the roughly 450 hospitals identified in a new analysis as at risk of closure or service cuts, around 200 are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans.
The unprecedented Medicaid cuts that US President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans approved last summer are putting hundreds of hospitals across the country at high risk of cutting services or permanently shutting their doors, a potentially devastating outcome for millions of poor Americans that was repeatedly predicted ahead of time.
The advocacy group Public Citizen released a report Monday identifying 446 hospitals that could be forced to reduce services or close because of the Trump-GOP Medicaid cuts, which will amount to around $1 trillion over the next decade. The at-risk hospitals collectively served 7 million patients in 2024, according to Public Citizen's analysis.
Nearly 200 of the hospitals listed in Public Citizen's report are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans who voted for the Medicaid cuts, and 146 are in states represented by Senate Republicans—nearly all of whom supported the sprawling budget package that included the assault on Medicaid.
“Trump’s cuts to Medicaid will hurt millions of low-income and disabled Americans, and will deepen financial strains that are already plaguing rural and safety-net hospitals—compromising their ability to deliver care, potentially leading many to close,” said Public Citizen researcher Eileen O’Grady, the author of the report. “Congress should take urgent action to restore all Medicaid funding cuts enacted by Trump and Republicans in Congress, and should extend the enhanced premium tax credits for coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.”
The report comes as Republicans are reportedly considering billions of dollars in additional healthcare cuts—and kicking hundreds of thousands more off their health coverage—to help fund Trump's illegal and increasingly expensive war on Iran.
Public Citizen found in its report that there's at least one hospital at risk of closing or slashing services in 44 states and Washington, DC. States with the highest proportion of at-risk hospitals are Connecticut, California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington, the analysis shows.
"It is notable that while there are more at-risk hospitals in Democrat-led states and congressional districts, a substantial number of hospitals in Republican-led states and congressional districts are threatened by Medicaid cuts," the report observes. "Almost all congressional Republicans voted to pass the Big Ugly Law."
"When unlawful force is repeated over time, it risks becoming normalized."
The Trump administration's most recent attack on a boat in the Caribbean, which killed four people last week, "highlights a sustained pattern of unlawful use of lethal force outside any context of armed conflict, amounting to extrajudicial executions," Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday.
The US military announced last Wednesday that it had conducted its 47th attack on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The Trump administration has presented little evidence for its claim that the targeted boats have been engaged in trafficking drugs to the United States. At least 163 people have been killed in these attacks since September 2025, all of them without trial.
Human Rights Watch is part of a chorus of international organizations and observers that have condemned the boat bombing campaign as acts of murder in flagrant violation of international law.
“These strikes aren’t one-off incidents, they’re part of a pattern of using military force where the law does not permit it, over and over again,” said Sarah Yager, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “The fact that these strikes have faded from public attention does not make these violations any less grave or unlawful.”
The organization noted that there is no ongoing military conflict in the Caribbean or eastern Pacific that would make those traveling by boat legitimate targets.
And while the US government has provided scant evidence that those it has killed were trafficking drugs, Human Rights Watch said that even if evidence of drug trafficking existed, suspected criminals are still not lawful targets of lethal force unless they pose an imminent threat to the lives of others.
The boat strikes have continued in the background as President Donald Trump has launched attacks against Venezuela and Iran, both of which international organizations have described as acts of aggression that violate the laws of war.
Trump has also enacted a crippling economic blockade of Cuba with the explicit goal of toppling its government so the US can "take" the island, and has previously threatened to use economic leverage or the US military to forcibly annex Greenland.
“When unlawful force is repeated over time, it risks becoming normalized,” Yager said. “That’s dangerous because it opens the door to using lethal force whenever and wherever a government wishes and without constraints.”