November, 29 2020, 11:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Pat Marida, patmarida@outlook.com, (614) 286-4851
Connie Kline, klineisfine@aol.com, (440) 946-9012
Terry Lodge, tjlodge50@yahoo.com, (419) 205-7084
Lee Blackburn, leeblackburn@live.com, (614) 216-0010
Kevin Kamps, kevin@beyondnuclear.org, (240) 462-3216
Ohio Nuclear Power Plant Legislation Assailed by Safe Energy and Environmental Groups
Dirty, dangerous, and expensive hb 104 contains not only statewide, but also regional and national risks.
WASHINGTON
On November 29, 2020, 56 local, regional and national environmental, public health and safe energy organizations blasted proposed House Bill 104, the "Advanced Nuclear Technology Helping Energize Mankind Act" ("ANTHEM Act") pending in the Ohio General Assembly. Calling the proposal a "radioactive taxpayer giveaway," the groups, representing hundreds of thousands of people, filed written testimony for a December 1 Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee hearing along with a one-page overview with 10 reasons to oppose HB 104. The activists warn that building state-sponsored small modular nuclear power reactors (SMRs) "will break the bank and destroy Ohio's chances for a clean and safe energy future" especially given COVID-related budgetary constraints and that ANTHEM could cause nuclear weapons proliferation, threats to public health and safety, radioactive contamination, and require huge, undetailed governmental subsidies.
House Bill ("HB") 104 is being pushed by eGeneration Foundation, a Cleveland company that envisions thorium and molten-salt nuclear power reactors, which have never gotten beyond small-scale experiments and show few prospects of commercial success. The company will not say where it would build several full-scale SMRs. There are no provisions for community or public involvement in the creation of an Ohio Nuclear Development Authority (NDA) to issue taxpayer-backed bonds for reactor construction. The NDA would be governed by a board of nuclear industry insiders within the Ohio Department of Commerce. In the House committee hearings Rep. Dick Stein, HB 104's sponsor, could not answer the question of who the Authority would be responsible to.
HB 104 has passed the Ohio House and may be discharged from the Senate committee on Tuesday for a floor vote in December, as the legislature resumes its "lame duck" session. Location of the agency within the Ohio Department of Commerce would mean that nuclear promotion, not regulation of health and safety, would be the priority, and that Ohio taxpayers would be liable for cleanup and dismantling when reactors close - or worse, after spills and accidents. The bill also allows for eminent domain.
Only New York State has ever set up a state nuclear development agency, which resulted in construction of a disastrous nuclear waste reprocessing plant at West Valley, New York in the 1960's. The venture has so far cost $600 million in cleanup and partial remediation, and tens of billions of dollars more will be needed for future cleanup costs to keep radioactive contamination from spreading.
"Enacting this self-inflicted fiscal nightmare in the midst of a pandemic will surely crimp provision of existing services by the government," said Pat Marida, chair of the Ohio Sierra Club's Nuclear Free Committee. "This untried technology will swallow up major financing that must instead be made immediately available to build genuine safe energy options to reduce the worst effects of climate chaos."
"eGeneration won't admit the potential for deadly accidents from operating test reactors and from the dirty, radioactive-waste-producing processes to extract enriched uranium and plutonium (one of the most toxic substances on earth) from radioactive waste," said Connie Kline, past Chair of the Ohio Sierra Club Nuclear Committee. "This bill creates national security concerns about the spread of nuclear weapons. The fuel required by these reactors are literally thermonuclear bomb ingredients that will command hefty prices on global black markets."
"Hasn't the General Assembly learned any lessons from the corruption around HB 6, the coal and nuclear bailout?" asked Lee Blackburn of the Sierra Club's Nuclear Free Committee.
"ANTHEM is a classic corporate welfare response for ideas too risky and half-baked to work in the so-called 'free market," offered Terry Lodge, Toledo attorney. "Why should billions more public dollars be risked on experiments that haven't perfected these dangerous processes in the last 55 years?"
"Reprocessing is environmentally ruinous," said Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear. "As shown in France, the U.K., upstate New York, and other places, plutonium and uranium extraction from high-level radioactive waste inevitably results in large-scale releases of hazardous, long-lasting ionizing radiation into the air and surface waters, such as the Great Lakes or Ohio River, that threaten people downwind, downstream, up the food chain, and down the generations."
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) 270-2209LATEST NEWS
'No Safety in Appeasement': Law Firms That Fought Trump Vindicated as DOJ Drops Cases
"Another significant victory for the rule of law over Trump's reign of lawlessness," said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
Mar 03, 2026
Congressman Jamie Raskin said the US Department of Justice's decision Monday to abandon its legal cases against law firms that refused to capitulate to President Donald Trump should serve as "a reminder that those who fight back against authoritarianism are winning."
The DOJ asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to dismiss its cases against law firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block, which won legal challenges they filed last year after Trump issued executive orders saying they should lose government contracts and their employees should be blocked from government buildings.
Those executive orders were signed because the firms represented and employed high-profile Democrats and other opponents of Trump.
Other law firms, including Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, angered lawyers within their ranks and the larger legal community when they signed deals with Trump; the latter firm agreed to end its internal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and provide $40 million in free legal work for the president and causes he supports.
The Trump administration's decision on Monday proved, said Raskin (D-Md.), that "there’s no safety in appeasement.”
“When the Trump administration tried to bully and silence law firms by banning them from federal buildings, courthouses and contracts, a handful—like Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—fought back," said Raskin. "Today, those firms forced Trump to back down and abandon his blatantly unconstitutional effort to punish lawyers, clients, and causes because Trump disagrees with their speech. Meanwhile, the firms that chose to roll over saddled their associates and partners with doing billions of dollars-worth of free legal work for Trump, his twisted administration and his MAGA allies."
While other firms caved to Trump's demands last year, the companies that didn't quickly won legal victories, with one federal judge saying the executive order targeting Jenner & Block was “doubly violative of the Constitution" because it targeted the clients it represents as well as a lawyer it once employed—Andrew Weissman, who was part of former special counsel Robert Mueller's team that investigated Trump.
“This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the executive branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," US District Judge John Bates wrote last May. "It thus violates the Constitution and the court will enjoin its operation in full.”
"This episode will be remembered as demonstrating the difference between institutions that had the ethical courage to uphold the Constitution and fight bullying and then won, and those that compromised their ethics and gained nothing."
Jenner & Block said Monday that "the government’s decision to withdraw its appeals makes permanent the rulings of four federal judges that the executive orders targeting law firms, including Jenner & Block, were unconstitutional."
"Our partnership is proud to have stood firm on behalf of its clients, and we look forward to continuing to serve them—guided by these bedrock values—for many decades to come," said the firm.
Brian Hauss, deputy director of the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project at the ACLU, said the DOJ had finally admitted "what everyone knew on Day 1: There is no way to defend these unconstitutional executive orders."
“This shameful assault on the rule of law has failed, thanks to the brave lawyers who refused to compromise their integrity," said Hauss.
Vanita Gupta, former associate attorney general under the Biden administration, told NBC News that the law groups that struck deals with the White House had "undermined the rule of law and the legal profession in this country."
"This episode will be remembered as demonstrating the difference between institutions that had the ethical courage to uphold the Constitution and fight bullying and then won, and those that compromised their ethics and gained nothing," Gupta said. "Let’s hope that media companies, universities, and other organizations pay heed."
In addition to his attacks on law firms, the president has threatened universities with funding cuts and federal investigations into what the White House views as antisemitism and extremism on campus and the colleges' efforts to promote diversity and inclusion.
At least six universities have struck deals with Trump. The University of Pennsylvania agreed to ban transgender student athletes from participating on women's sports teams and Columbia University agreed to further crack down on campus protests like those that erupted in 2024 against US support for Israel's assault on Gaza—protests that both the Biden and Trump administrations claimed were antisemitic.
Harvard sued the administration over its decision to freeze $2.2 billion in research funding and was granted a restraining order last year to protect international students whom the White House had threatened with visa restrictions.
On Monday, Raskin said the DOJ's decision to back down from the attacks on law firms was "another significant victory for the rule of law over Trump's reign of lawlessness."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Netanyahu Insists Iran Assault Is 'Not an Endless War' as US Sends More Forces to Middle East
Benjamin Netanyahu infamously predicted that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 would "have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
Mar 03, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted in a Fox News appearance late Monday that the intensifying assault on Iran "is not an endless war," even as Trump administration officials declined to provide a clear timeline for the ongoing military operations, deployed more forces to the region, and signaled a more intense bombing campaign is ahead.
As elements of Trump's MAGA base expressed outrage over the war, which is broadly unpopular with the American public, Netanyahu claimed in an appearance on "Hannity" that the US-Israeli onslaught "will create conditions of peace," remarks that came as the Middle East descended into regional war as Iran retaliated against the illegal attacks with strikes on sites in at least nine countries.
The Israeli prime minister's comments recalled his infamous prediction in 2002, ahead of the US invasion of Iraq, that "if you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
Netanyahu's remarks to Trump loyalist Sean Hannity echoed those of US Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told reporters and the public earlier Monday that "this is not Iraq," dismissing criticism of the administration for plunging the US into another disastrous Middle East war.
"This is not endless," Hegseth said. The Pentagon chief later bristled at a question about President Donald Trump's suggested timeline of "four weeks or less," calling it a "typical NBC sort of got-you type question."
"President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take four weeks, two weeks, six weeks," Hegseth said. "It could move up, it could move back. We're going to execute at his command."
During the same press conference, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US would be sending more forces to the region, declining to offer specifics so as not to "tip the enemy off." Caine also said the US expects to "take additional losses."
"This work is just beginning and will continue," Caine said.
Trump, for his part, said the timeline for the war is "whatever it takes" for the US and Israel to achieve their stated objectives, which have ranged from knocking out Iran's nuclear energy program to full-scale regime change.
"Right from the beginning we projected four to five weeks, but we have the capability to go far longer than that," Trump said.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, warned that "the hardest hits are yet to come from the US military" and said that "the next phase will be even more punishing on Iran than it is right now." Rubio also indicated that Trump decided to join Israel in attacking Iran because the planned Israeli attack was likely to spark retaliation against US forces in the region, a justification that critics described as "insane."
The Iranian Red Crescent said Tuesday that Iran's death toll from the assault is now close to 800 and counting. The US has confirmed six deaths from an Iranian strike on a military installation in Kuwait.
"That we would just follow an ally into a war of choice that puts hundreds of Americans' lives, if not thousands of Americans' lives, at risk should be bone-chilling to Americans," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said late Monday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Leads Push for UN to Declare US-Israeli Assault on Iran 'War of Aggression'
"No legal framework, international or domestic, can justify this."
Mar 02, 2026
A leading human rights group on Monday urged the United Nations General Assembly to declare the unprovoked US-Israeli assault on Iran—which has already killed more than 500 people in just three days, including many children—a "war of aggression."
In a letter sent to the permanent missions of all UN member states in New York City, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) "called on governments to formally request an emergency special session of the UN General Assembly to declare the assault a war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter and to demand the immediate cessation of all hostilities."
"The [UN] Security Council is unable to make that determination because the United States, as a permanent member and a party to the conflict, will veto any resolution," DAWN explained. "The General Assembly should act in its place."
DAWN's call came as the death toll from three days of US-Israeli bombardment of cities, towns, and sites throughout Iran rose to at least 555, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society. Multiple massacres—including a bombing of a girls' school in Minab that officials said killed at least 180 people, many of them students—have been reported.
"The United States has initiated a war of aggression, which UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 defines as 'a crime against international peace' and which the Nuremberg Tribunal—established by the United States itself—called 'the supreme international crime,'" the group noted.
DAWN continued:
The US and Israeli decision to go to war violates the foundations of jus ad bellum, the body of international law governing when a state may lawfully use force against another. Under UN Charter Article 2(4), all member states are prohibited from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. There are only two explicit exceptions: self-defense under Article 51, or authorization by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII. Neither applies here. Article 51 permits self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs," and Iran had not attacked the United States. Even under the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, the war is unlawful.
"No legal framework, international or domestic, can justify this US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran," DAWN executive director Omar Shakir said in a statement. "This war is patently illegal, and it must be stopped."
DAWN's call came on the same day that US First Lady Melania Trump chaired a UN Security Council meeting about the role of education in "advancing tolerance and world peace."
Just to be clear, sending his wife Melania to preside over the United Nations Security Council is a display of contempt for the UN by Trump.During his first term, Trump similarly sent his daughter Ivanka to multiple United Nations General Assembly sessions.
[image or embed]
— Leah McElrath (@leahmcelrath.bsky.social) March 2, 2026 at 1:02 PM
"We've become the laughingstock of the entire world," lamented the social media group Occupy Democrats. "This is an unprecedented appearance by an American first dady and yet another sign that [President] Donald Trump prizes loyalty and proximity to himself over competence."
"In fact, this is the first time that the spouse of ANY world leader has been allowed to take the president's seat on the Security Council," Occupy Democrats added. "It sends a clear signal to the world that the United States is now little more than a nepotistic, tin-pot dictatorship."
DAWN also sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to pass a pair of war powers resolutions that would bar US forces from waging an unconstitutional war on Iran. H.Con.Res.38 and S.J.Res.59—introduced last year respectively by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)—would direct Trump to withdraw US forces from unconstitutional attacks on Iran.
"The question before Congress is not whether to authorize this war retroactively," the letter states. "Given that... this war has been illegal under US domestic law from the moment it began... the question before you is whether to end it now, and Congress has the power to do so."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


