Jerry Cuttler stated earlier (see copy appended at bottom below) that "I find it difficult to understand how we can establish social acceptance of any solution if the public does not have factual information about the key aspects of the issue." Here we have another shining example of how the media make sure that the public never gets factual information. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1090577920874&call_pageid=970599119419 Jul. 25, 2004. 01:00 AM Abandon nuclear option, Ontario LINDA MCQUAIG Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca. If you're looking for mountainside property, one place to avoid would be Yucca Mountain, Nevada. That's likely to be the case for a long time - say, about the next million years. Just how long Yucca Mountain may be an undesirable location came to light earlier this month in a court case over the U.S. government's plan to bury nuclear waste there. There's no dispute that nuclear waste remains dangerously radioactive for a long time; the dispute was over just how long. Washington's burial plan made provisions for protecting the public from radioactive leaks for 10,000 years - quite a long time for a culture that no longer has the patience to even dial telephone numbers. But it wasn't long enough to satisfy a U.S. appeals court, which dealt Washington a temporary setback in its 17-year effort to win the right to bury nuclear waste at the Nevada site - over the objections of Nevada. The court cited evidence from the National Academy of Sciences to the effect that radioactive leaks could be expected for up to a million years. For what it's worth, the academy predicted the risk would be greatest about 300,000 years from now. These sorts of mind-boggling numbers merely highlight the ongoing, unsolved dilemma of disposing of nuclear waste, a gigantic problem that would seem, on the face of it, to rule out any move in the direction of making ourselves more reliant than we already are on nuclear power. Incredibly, however, this isn't the case. The Bush administration has expressed keenness for building new reactors. And, right here in Ontario, the McGuinty government is currently contemplating whether to freshly embrace nuclear power, as it tries to figure out how to deal with an expected energy crunch. There's been surprisingly little public debate over the prospect of a revived commitment to nuclear power, even though it would involve us hitching our wagon more tightly to a power source that has been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of most people since the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania - not to mention the actual meltdown at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986. Given this public disenchantment, there's been no investment in new nuclear reactors in Canada or the U.S. since the 1970s. Ontario made massive investments in nuclear power in the 1970s - investments that saddled Ontario electricity consumers with enormous debts that we are still paying off. These plants haven't just been financially disastrous; they also haven't work that well. Eight of our twenty reactors were shut down in the mid-1990s. Today, five are out of order and require very expensive repairs. The rest will soon be coming to the end of their natural life, if a nuclear plant can be said to have such a thing. All this would seem to confirm the view that nuclear power is a phenomenon best put behind us - except, of course, for working out that pesky problem about how to get rid of the waste that's already been generated. But the anticipated energy crunch in Ontario has given new life to the nuclear industry. "The industry is circling the injured beast like sharks in the water," says Ottawa-based energy consultant Ralph Torrie. The McGuinty government just announced it would spend another $900 million to finish repairing one of the Pickering reactors, a move Torrie compares to a gambler believing that if he makes just one more bet, he'll win all his money back. The revived interest in nukes is partly due to the realization that other energy sources, particularly coal and oil, are contributing to global warming. We appear to be left with the choice of either frying the Earth or contaminating it for the next million years. In fact, neither is necessary. Torrie argues that the solution lies in adopting available technologies for more energy-efficient appliances and lighting systems. We've already made huge advances in this direction but could go much farther. A recent study by the Alberta-based Pembina Institute backs this up, and sets out in detail how Ontario could use efficiency gains to wean itself off both nuclear and coal-fired power plants. The study notes that nuclear power "has never lived up to its promise." Indeed, the nuclear industry wouldn't even be in business if it didn't enjoy the huge helping hand of government. Canada, like other countries, has passed legislation limiting the nuclear industry's liability in the event of a meltdown. That's been great for the industry, but it's also meant that Yucca Mountain and vicinity will likely be an area to avoid for the foreseeable future. ==================== From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of Jerry Cuttler Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 11:42 AM To: cdn-nucl-l Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Fw: Comments on June 2004 NWMO Newsletter ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerry Cuttler <mailto:jerrycuttler@rogers.com> To: mkrizanc@nwmo.ca <mailto:mkrizanc@nwmo.ca> Cc: Donna Pawlowski <mailto:dpawlowski@nwmo.ca> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:12 PM Subject: Comments on June 2004 NWMO Newsletter Hi Mike, Thank you for informing me about this newsletter. After reading it carefully, I find it difficult to understand how we can establish social acceptance of any solution if the public does not have factual information about the key aspects of the issue. Were the following facts about used CANDU fuel given to the public or to the representative samples of citizens? a) Only 1% of the energy in nuclear fuel is released in CANDU reactors. The other 99% of the energy could be released by recycling the used CANDU fuel in advanced nuclear reactors that future generations of Canadians will build (if nuclear power is not phased out in Canada, as is being advocated by anti-nuclear activists.) At the present time, it's not economical to recycle the fuel. b) The containers that now hold used fuel bundles are designed and constructed to be very robust. They would last more than a thousand years, if Canadians decided to leave them unopened in a used fuel storage area above ground. c) After many decades of storage, the radioactivity of the used fuel (stored in the containers) decreases greatly. d) Only high doses of radiation are harmful. Low doses of radiation actually reduce risk, that is, they are really a health benefit. e) Without recycling, just one CANDU fuel bundle (only 10 cm diameter x 50 cm long) provides all the electrical power that an average household uses for 100 years, and the used fuel is easily stored in robust, sealed containers. So "the problem" of the used fuel is not really a significant problem. (It is really a problem only for anti-nuclear activists.) There are no difficult trade-offs that need to be considered. Compared to the problem of managing our municipal wastes and the problem of managing air pollution from our fossil-fired power plants, managing used CANDU fuel is relatively simple. Why do you think the anti-nuclear activists are concerned? Canadian scientists and engineers have given our grandchildren a very important legacy. It is the technology to release an enormous amount of pollution-free energy at an affordable cost. And we are putting our used CANDU fuel bundles in robust sealed containers, so our grandchildren can recycle this fuel when it is economical to do so. Sincerely, Jerry ------------------------------ Dr. Jerry M. Cuttler jerrycuttler@rogers.com <mailto:jerrycuttler@rogers.com> ------------------------------------------------ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.717 / Virus Database: 473 - Release Date: 7/8/2004
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>