June 26th, 2008
Nuclear Safety Guidelines Protect the Industry Not Canadians
Shawn Patrick Stensil
Greenpeace released a report today that assesses both the adequacy of Canada’s nuclear safety regulations and the weaknesses of the reactor designs being considered for construction in Ontario. The Globe and Mail ran a story on the report this morning.
The report finds that Canada’s nuclear safety standards fail to protect Canadians from the full range of real accident and terrorist threats posed by nuclear stations. It also finds that all three reactor designs being considered for Ontario contain flaws that leave them vulnerable to radiation releases following an accident or terrorist attack.
We’ve submitted the report to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency as comments on the proposed environmental assessment guidelines for Bruce Power’s proposal to build new reactors at the Bruce site on Lake Huron.
I think most Canadians would be surprised to learn that historically environmental reviews on nuclear stations in Canada haven’t assessed the environmental impacts of nuclear power’s biggest hazards, such as the long-term storage of radioactive waste and nuclear accidents leading to large radiation releases. Unsurprisingly, this leads to misleading environmental assessments that conclude there will be “no significant environmental impacts.”
This is obviously not true, but the federal nuclear agencies (such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) continue to pretend that many types of accidents won’t happen and dismiss public requests that such accidents be considered in environmental reviews.
If Ontario is going to proceed with its plan to build new nuclear reactors, Canadians deserve an honest and comprehensive assessment of the hazards posed by new nuclear plants.
Canada’s nuclear safety regulations would allow reactors vulnerable to accidents and terrorist attacks to be built.
Canadians have the right to understand what the potential consequences of such accidents and terrorist attacks would be. Any credible environmental assessment will not pretend that such accidents won’t happen.
Indeed, any credible review of the environmental impacts of an accidents or terrorist attacks would show that no new reactors should be approved.
You can read the report here, or get a synopsis of the reports findings here.
Nuclear Safety Guidelines Protect the Industry Not Canadians
Categories: Nuclear
Share this post
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
June 27th, 2008 at 2:04 am
For the sake of money,we are all doomed.
Bruce Power obviously do not care about people,it is all the money that makes them tottaly oblivious to the hazzards,and world danger of nuclear reactors represent.
i would consider these people a danger to the whole world,and they should be jailed.
Why is germany saying the want to be nuclear free by the year 2020 ?
German history has always been considered as the forfront of knowledge.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Germany history at the forefront of knowledge? Yikes, I’d be inclined to say that is a matter of opinion Bill.
As for your comment on Germany phasing out nuclear power altogether– what about all the energy they had to purchase from surrounding countries over the past year? I’m all for renewable, sustainable energy sources but I don’t think nuclear is the enemy– there’s the cliche excuse of Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, but the industry has evolved so much since then that its like comparing the faults of Ford’s Model-T against today’s automotives…impractical and downright naive.
Utilizing sustainable energy sources with those of today’s emission-free technologies (such as nuclear) will grant the appropriate economic and environmental abilities to begin proper assessing of moving into sustainable technologies. In regard to waste, North America is the only place that uses nuclear power without investing in recycling or renewal practices– this is a governmental decision, not a corporate.
As for ostracizing Bruce Power for waiting to select a technology– is that not the sensical thing to do? Why walk in blind? Terrorism attacks are nothing short of a Bush-ish scare tactic at this point. Apologies to play that card, but opinion-wise that is my immediate reaction to this pseudo-informed piece. According to the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) the capabilities, from a security standpoint, of a plane breaching a reactor shell is next to impossible.
June 29th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Brad, by describing nuclear power as “emissions free” it sounds like you’ve bought the nuclear propaganda hook line and sinker. There is a sign on the Darlington property that says nuclear energy = clean air. The air only appears clean until you test for tritium which is released in massive quantities from CANDU stations where it readily becomes radioactive water in the biosphere and contaminates all life forms that ingest, inhale or absorb it. Tritium levels in the great lakes below Superior are about eight times elevated above natural background due to releases from CANDU nuclear stations. That’s a lot of tritium. Don’t insult us by claiming nuclear power is emissions free.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Brad,
You must think uranium grows on trees to consider it emission free. In Eastern Ontario where I live, several companies are “exploring” for uranium that will require as much conventional energy to extract and refine as will be derived from its fission in a nuclear power plant.
You may also like to consider that 80% of Canadian uranium is exported while 100% of the tailings, extraction chemicals, etc stay here.
With all of the new technology that has hatched in the past decade expanding our use of nuclear power is like returning to the stone age.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
…as opposed to buying the greenpeace propaganda hook-line-and-sinker? We talk about insulting each other intelligence, granted gentlemen my remark may have been hurried, but the fact remains that ostracizing this plant on grounds of a terrorist threat seems a little ridiculous.
I understand your stance, and agree that energy cannot end with nuclear– but at the moment it would be the most practical until sustainable technologies are able to advance further.
I am not a believer in the supposed “propaganda”, being a student of political economy and critical media studies I consider myself the opposite.
There’s no doubt this is grounds for an intriguing debate. My stance is merely, and unaggressively, saying that the Greenpeace report doesn’t seem reasonable in its message. If we are to rely on the idea that a terrorist threat could occur, what industry is “safe”? If anything, deciding on an appropriate technology after the assessments would provide the safest method…why choose ahead of time?
I hope to see your response, certainly an interesting issue for Ontario!
And as for “insulting” you Jeff Bracket, contrary to popular belief, not everyone has the statistics of uranium memorized…no need to make things personal. I appreciate your insight, but the fact remains that solar and wind at this time are simply not harnessable to the extent we, as a province (or more so a society), require.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I would agree that so called renewables will likely never make up the slack if we are ban crude oil and natural gas, as these are not as greenhouse friendly as nuclear. Im more interested in wondering why no one talks about France and their huge production of nuclear energy. Maybe we can learn something from this country, nothing is perfect, but pinning all our hopes on wind and solar is really not realistic.