|
I hope you can open the
pdf attachment.
Looking at the other sources of radiation that
people are exposed to, I can't understand why anyone would be concerned about a
few atoms of radioactivity that would migrate up out of a used fuel repository
after thousands of years and damage a few cells (remembering that we have
about a billion cells in each gram of our bodies that are being constantly
protected, repaired and replaced by our defences).
We could communicate this sort of information,
and perhaps people might start to worry about something else.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:43
PM
Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Pembina
Institute
Speaking of Dion....
Anybody want to tell him to read the NWMO report comissioned by his own
party's government?
Also, in the wake of his comments even the CNA has been refering to the
plan as "burying Nuclear waste"
Can you imagine a more negative image than a couple of shady government
guys digging a hole and throwing stuff in???
I think the engineering behind the reposiory needs to be emphasized
more... i think in my letter wrting days I counted 10-12 barriers between the
radionuclides and a person....hardly "burying"
Simon Day
<dayse@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
Hi
all,
Recently the Pembina Institute have been given sound-bites on
CBC radio
in relation to Stephane Dion's skeptical comments about nuclear
power
in the energy mix. Could anyone shed some light on this group?
Anyone
know who Mark Whitfield (PhD) is, who is their lead author on
their
nuke document and many others?
I seem to remember (maybe)
that someone was calling them on some dodgy
statistics with regards to
price of nuclear power a while back but
could be wrong. In any event they
are being given a national forum as
an expert in the field.
I had
a brief look at their website (www.pembina.org) and downloaded
their
document "Nuclear Power in Canada: An Examination of Risks,
Impacts, and
Sustainability" (Dec. 2006). It seems that their
anti-nuclear stance is
based on:
- risk of accident
- unreliable generation
-
unacceptable position for nuclear waste (spent fuel)
- and perhaps
primarily massive estimates of green house gases (GHG)
and other
pollution (heavy metals) generated from uranium mining
Anyone got a
take on what they are coming up with. I was surprised at
the numbers and
assessment of the mining stage of the cycle but
admittedly don't know
much about it. This group have LOTS of what
appear to be
technical/assessment documents on their site on a variety
of
energy/environment topics. I'd like to know more about their
legitimacy.
Thoughts? Info?
With regards to the mining of uranium, even if Canada
decides not to
back nuclear, uranium mining isn't going to slow down -
that is for
sure.
Simon Day
McMaster
University
_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l
mailing
list
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
|