IICPH Newsletter  /  Fall/Winter 2004

You maight not want to swin in the "pools" at our nuclear reactor sites. That is where they store teh still radiocactive user bundles from the reactors. In Canada it all began at Chalk River in 1952 whateas in the Unites States, it really began with the Manhattan Project in 1939. This misadventure has generated mountains of readioactive waste and nthe US is now looking to put this gigantic radioactivity inside leaky Yucca Mountain which has raised a lot of protest in Nevada and Arizona. Where shall we put it in Canada?

Althouh the whole nuclear cycle causes human, animal, plant deformation and misery, it is the question of the high-level and the low-levgel waste which is the Achilles' Heel of the industry. This "mission impossible" is parthly responsible for the phasing out of nuclear energy in Belgium, Germany and Sweden. But the total global number of 441 reactors is expected to climb as Asia plans more plants. This may be because the people of such countries as China and India know little of the hazards of nuclear waste or of the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Miles Island.

IICPH is involved in yet another round of discussions on what to do with our nuclear waste. For nine years there were public hearings to review the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept, referred to as the Seaborn Panel. This was followed by passing the Nuclear Waste Management Act in 2002 and teh setting up of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), whose mandate is to recommend a "solution" by November 15, 2005, or face financial penalties. Numerous "Dialogues" have been held. We attended in Toronto and North Bay, and the website www.nwmo.ca encourages wide participation. However the Board of Directors is made up of members of Ontario Power Generation, Hydro-Quebec and New Brunswick Power in obvious rejection of the Seaborn Panel's recommendation that the decision-makers be outside the industy. The final report will go to the Minister of Natural Resources, the body that has always favoured nuclear power because of Canada's huge uran ium mines. There doesn't seem to be any plan to have the issue discussed in parliament or even at the Cabinet level. This is garbage unlike any other. You can bury it but you can never leave it unwatched.

Rosalie Bertell, who has worked so long to raise awareness of the dangers of radiation is one of the forces behind the completion of the study by the European Committee on Radiation Risk of 2003. It concludes that releases of radioactivity without consent cannot be ethically justified because even the smallest dose has a finite, if small, probability of fatal harm. And there is much harm that, while not immediately fatal, is nevertheless devastating. We will continue to boject to any process to deal with radioactive warte which does not stipulate the end of the production of more waste. Nuclear reactors could be shut down safely today. Alternate energy supply is available and it, along with conservation, is the route to go. Add your voice to the chorus calling for a thorough investigation of the costs, health effects, hazards, military connection and future of nuclear power.

After the NWMO reaches a conclusion on "disposal", you can be sure that the next generation of CANDUs will continue to be sold in many countries; research will continue on more reactors. Proponents of reactors will now reap profits from "disposal" of the waste. There is no good place to put it -- no way of keeping it safe for the immensely long time it remains radioactive.