In the Scotsman, yesterday, in a sequence of anti-SNP pieces recently, the above from the woman below:

Melanie Ward has worked for several charities, including Christian Aid, and ActionAid UK. For a time she chaired The Circle, which is a charity that Annie Lennox founded to empower women. By December 2015, Ward was the associate director of policy and advocacy for International Rescue Committee UK (IRC). She was still working for IRC in September 2021.

In September 2022, Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) announced that it had appointed Ward to become its new CEO. She took up her position in January 2023. In May 2024, Time included her in its “Time100 Health” list of influential workers in the health sector. In May 2024, MAP granted her leave of absence for the duration of that year’s general election campaign. On 4 July she was elected as an MP and the next day she resigned as CEO of MAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Ward

‘The next day she resigned as CEO of Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP?)’ I bet she did! Slimey Labour.

Well, I suppose she won’t be worrying about betraying former loyalties on nuclear energy.

From the the Natural Resources Defense Council in the US, yesterday, the above, and:

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – The Trump administration is waging a concerted attack on the nation’s responsibility to protect the public against toxics and radiation, deliberately ignoring that cancer that kills more than 600,000 Americans every year, according to a new analysis released today by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). 

The Trump Administration’s Pro-Cancer Agenda details how this administration has undermined protections from cancer, all to help the chemical, oil, coal, and nuclear industries. Americans could face an extraordinary increase in exposure to carcinogens as a result.

“At the behest of the oil, chemical, coal and nuclear industries the Trump administration is systematically dismantling the nation’s cancer protections. It is disregarding science and threatening to supercharge an epidemic of cancer, affecting nearly every family in the country,” said Erik D. Olson, senior strategic director for health at NRDC. “Instead of making America healthy again, with these actions the administration is working on behalf of polluters and chemical makers to expose us all to more carcinogens.”

For five decades the American government has been committed to fighting a War On Cancer, but this administration has switched sides, waging a War to Promote Cancer. https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/trump-administrations-pro-cancer-agenda

Are there any similarities in the UK Government’s pro-nuclear stance and policy statements to the above Trump moves?

Yes, there are some clear parallels in the direction of policy.

The NRDC press release (dated around 14 October 2026) argues that the Trump administration is pursuing a “pro-cancer agenda” by rolling back longstanding protections against carcinogens, including specifically “rolling back radiation safeguards for nuclear plants and nearby communities.” It highlights the administration’s reconsideration of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model (which assumes no safe level of radiation exposure and that risk is proportional to dose) and the associated ALARA (“as low as reasonably achievable”) standard. The NRDC frames this as abandoning the scientific principle of “no safe level of exposure” to carcinogens in order to benefit the nuclear industry (alongside chemical, oil, and coal interests), potentially increasing public cancer risk amid rising cancer rates.⁠https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/trump-administrations-pro-cancer-agenda

The UK government (under both the previous Conservative and current Labour administrations) has a strongly pro-nuclear stance aimed at significant expansion of civil nuclear capacity for energy security, low-carbon power, jobs, and industrial growth. This includes the Civil Nuclear Roadmap to 2050 (up to ~24 GW ambition), designation of the National Policy Statement EN-7, major funding for Sizewell C and SMRs (e.g., at Wylfa), an Advanced Nuclear Framework for private projects, and regulatory reforms.

The independent Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce (Fingleton Review, final report November 2025) criticised an overly complex, process-driven system and a “culture of risk aversion” and over-conservatism in applying ALARP (“as low as reasonably practicable,” the UK equivalent of ALARA). It noted that the focus has shifted too far toward the “as low as” element.

Both governments are advancing pro-nuclear agendas that include regulatory streamlining to accelerate deployment, reduce costs, and improve viability of new reactors (large-scale and modular), framed around energy security, growth, and (in the UK’s case) net zero.

Critics using an NRDC-style framing would view the UK reforms similarly—as risking higher (or less stringently minimised) radiation exposures to benefit the nuclear industry, potentially elevating cancer risks under the LNT assumption.

Sources:

https://policybrief.org/briefs/the-nuclear-regulatory-taskforce-the-wrong-questions-the-wrong-team-the-wrong-answers/ https://uk.news.yahoo.com/community-groups-warn-against-push-110033754.html https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-our-nuclear-nation-government-response-to-the-nuclear-regulatory-review-2025/building-our-nuclear-nation-government-response-to-the-nuclear-regulatory-review-2025-accessible-webpage

For more on this, see:

A message for Scotland’s voters as Labour double down on nuclear – Researchers revisit study of Essex nuclear power station and breast cancer incidence among mature women nearby to find an even greater risk, only a short distance from new Sizewell C, and an ‘establishment bias and cover-up’