

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.

Michael J. Keegan, Don't Waste Michigan, Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, Monroe, MI, (734) 770-1441;
Dave Kraft, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Chicago, IL, (773) 342-7650;
Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear, Takoma Park, MD, (240) 462-3216;
Diane D'Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Takoma Park, MD, (301) 270-6477, Ext. 3;
Kay Cumbow, Great Lakes Environmental Alliance, Port Huron, MI, (810) 346-4513.
Groups concerned about the Great Lakes are asking "Why is irradiated nuclear fuel being moved? Where is it going? What happens at the destination?" They are calling for answers after a highway transport route for high-level radioactive waste from the LaSalle nuclear power reactors in Illinois to the "Port of Exit" at Port Huron, Michigan was uncovered by a diligent watchdog group. The implication of the Port of Exit is that the waste would either continue by ground travel into Canada or be transferred to water transport on the St Clair River and the connecting waterways to the Great Lakes.
A brief letter dated July 13, 2018, from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to "Secured Transportation Services," cites an application under 45 day review by the NRC, for a highway transport route for lethal high level radioactive waste (irradiated fuel) from the LaSalle nuclear reactors in Illinois to the "Port Huron, Michigan Port of Exit." [1] The letter was found July 23rd, buried among 467 documents on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) online ADAMS library, under an obscure title. The number of transports is not given, but, depending on how much nuclear waste is shipped from the LaSalle reactors, could be in the hundreds.
Oddly, Port Huron is named as a "Port of Exit," not a Point of Exit as is usually cited for road/truck shipments. This suggests a possible water route (though it is not confirmed) to an unknown destination. The letter only refers to shipping from central Illinois to Port Huron by a land route. It does not reveal where or how the waste would move from there, raising big questions about why it is being moved.
An NRC spokesman on this issue, Mr. Alex Sapountzis, is quoted in an email (pasted at the end of the release) to an NRC librarian as stating that "details of all spent nuclear fuel routes are designated as Safeguards Information/sensitive information and therefore will not be placed in ADAMS. All a member of the public will see in ADAMS is that in a letter we state we accepted for review a route (it has all the information we need to conduct our review) and then an approval letter (based on the information the applicant submitted, we accept the route and for transport by road it's good for 5 years or by rail for 7 years)." [2]
The email suggests that approval of the route is taken for granted. To all appearances, a review is superficial, a done deal.
"We have serious concerns about shipping high-level radioactive waste from Exelon's LaSalle reactors to a port city," said David Kraft, director of the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service. "Except in cases of extreme emergency, we believe that irradiated fuel should only be moved once for permanent isolation."
The larger questions - where is the nuclear waste going and why?
"Why are these lethal wastes being moved? Is it for storage elsewhere? Experimentation or testing? How much waste and how many shipments will travel over the route in the 5 years for trucking on roads and 7 years for rail shipments that NRC would approve?" asked Diane D'Arrigo, of Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
If the wastes are exiting the U.S. at Port Huron but not by water, it would have to be going to Canada by either road or rail. Are our Canadian neighbors aware of this potential? Are they prepared for these potentially deadly shipments on their roads and railways? Are we?
Why send the waste to Port Huron - a city with reportedly just one deepwater port, largely used for recreation, not known to be used for large industrial shipments? Port Huron, on the St. Clair River, is part of critical connecting channels linking the Upper and Lower Great Lakes. A ground route would take the wastes either over the Blue Water Bridge, which crosses the St. Clair River, or by rail, through a tunnel that connects the two countries. "A spill, release or fire here or near waterways that flow into the St. Clair River, could potentially ruin one of the largest fresh water deltas in the world - the St. Clair Flats - and potentially poison forever, drinking water and freshwater ecosystems for up to 40 + million people of the Great Lakes, including residents of Canada, the U.S., U.S. Tribes, First Nations and other Indigenous Peoples," stated Kay Cumbow of Great Lakes Environmental Alliance, Port Huron, MI.
Because these wastes are high security risks, moving them will mean militarizing our highways and possibly the Great Lakes.
"Have first responders and communities along potential route(s) been made aware of the dangers to human life, if there is an accident or attack resulting in catastrophic release of these hazardous highly radioactive wastes?" asked Kevin Kamps, of Beyond Nuclear, in Takoma Park, Maryland.
"Why risk sending deadly radioactive wastes through our communities and Great Lakes watersheds?" asked Michael Keegan, spokesperson for Don't Waste Michigan and Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes, Monroe, Michigan. "Where are these fuel rods going and what's the whole purpose behind it? American taxpayers and communities at risk along the routes deserve to know."
"Where are these wastes going?" Mr. Keegan added: "Is Canada or Europe the final destination?"
Note: For a description or irradiated nuclear fuel, see: Nuclear Information and Resource Service, https://www.nirs.org/radioactive-waste/hlw/
References
[1] ACCEPTANCE FOR HIGHWAY ROUTE APPROVAL APPLICATION (NRC NO. 261) ROUTE: LASALLE COUNTY NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION TO PORT HURON, MICHIGAN PORT OF EXIT, DOCKET NUMBER: 070-07011 - See: https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML18193A031
[2] Email correspondence from NRC PDR Resource librarian to Kay Cumbow - See page 4.
Addendum
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"He’s the Jim Cramer of Iran war predictions," said one critic.
Conservative commentator Dave Rubin, who for months has been a top booster of President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, was inundated with mockery on Sunday after a viral video exposed months' worth of his failed predictions about the conflict.
The video, which was posted on social media Saturday, begins with Rubin telling viewers to not listen to any of the prognostications being made by critics of the war, which Trump launched in late February without any authorization from Congress.
"I'm pretty good with predictions," Rubin says. "And my prediction here is that everything the media is now going to say about Iran—it's going to close the Strait of Hormuz, and energy prices are going to go crazy—none of this is going to come to pass."
Iran war: greatest hits from the last 12 weeks pic.twitter.com/9pgXyvmsgF
— Dave Rubin Clips II (Parody) - Retired Jan.20/2025 (@DaveClips) May 24, 2026
The video then cuts to Rubin wrongly predicting that gas prices during the conflict "will continue to come down," before switching to claims that Iran lacks the military capability to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed in the face of US military power.
"If the United States wants to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, which it does," says Rubin, "and Donald Trump says we'll escort ships through if we have to, it's going to stay open."
From there, the video shows Rubin hyping of the prospect of Iranian dissident Reza Pahlavi swooping in to take over the country after the war, and then getting fooled by a fake artificial intelligence-generated video of Iranians giving thanks to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bombing their country.
The video compilation of Rubin's failed predictions drew immediate ridicule from critics.
"He’s the Jim Cramer of Iran war predictions," joked Krystal Ball.
Commentator Adam Mockler wrote of Rubin that "it’s brutal watching him make failed predictions week after week."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald argued that the video should be the last nail in the coffin of whatever credibility Rubin had left.
"Imagine having sat through and listened to all of this Israeli propaganda, which turned out to be (predictably and completely) false," commented Greenwald, "and then thinking there was some value in continuing to listen to this person."
The Bulwark's Tim Miller said that while he knew Rubin was "a smooth-brained hack," he still "couldn’t even fathom how bad these war takes would be."
Political analyst Omar Baddar, meanwhile, said the video should erase any doubt that Rubin is "the dumbest man on the internet."
The Trump administration last week sued Minnesota after it passed a law banning prediction markets from operating in the state.
A Sunday report in The New York Times revealed how the Trump administration is using a key government agency to shut down any efforts to regulate online betting markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
According to the Times, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers at the agency who have expressed interest in providing oversight on prediction markets.
Among other things, the report documented how multiple officials at CTFC have been put on leave simply for asking questions about the betting markets' ties to members of President Donald Trump's family or for having past experience enforcing regulations related to cryptocurrencies.
What's more, the Times found that even being an industry insider isn't enough to guarantee good standing in the agency. Brian Quintenz, who was tapped by Trump to lead CTFC last year, saw his nomination withdrawn after he drew the ire of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss for refusing to support their cryptocurrency exchange's complaint against the agency.
Revelations about industry insiders rolling over regulators at CTFC come as the Trump administration is fighting any attempts by states to regulate prediction markets.
As explained in a Thursday report from CNBC, the Trump administration is "fighting a multi-front battle to stop the state actions and assert its regulatory authority," with CTFC arguing that it is "the only entity that can regulate" betting platforms.
16 different states are engaged in legal proceedings against the platforms, and Minnesota last week passed a law to ban them outright, which immediately drew a lawsuit from the administration.
The new Minnesota law, which is scheduled to take effect in August, bans prediction markets "from hosting, creating or advertising in the state," according to ABC News.
In an interview with ABC, Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B) said she authored the legislation because she has grown increasingly concerned about young people in the state seeing their finances drained from placing online bets.
"We're seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds," said Greenman, "and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger."
CFTC Chair Michael Selig last month warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would "circumvent the clear directive of Congress."
"Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others," said Selig. "If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you."
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz," said one critic of the war.
President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."