nuclear-news

High level nuclear waste dump for shores of Great Lakes!

how did governments around the world, citizens like us around the world, science and the nuclear industry, turn a blind eye to the huge buildup of nuclear waste for more than 40 years as we enjoyed the fruits of nuclear power?

the nuclear waste dangers will remain for thousands of years, longer than civilization itself. And right next to the largest fresh-water lake system in the world.

Nuclear waste, tourism don’t mix http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2012/05/25/19800186.html By WAYNE MACDONALD,  May 26, 2012  A packed council chambers in Saugeen Shores, where I live, stood in stunned amazement as its local council- once again – took a huge step toward changing the face of this lakeside community with no discussion, no debate. Absolutely none.

One councillor later explained that council was at fault for not explaining to the people that there was no need for discussion. What council had done was move the community another step forward in its still-puzzling anxious desire to become Canada’s high-level nuclear waste dump site.

No need for discussion? When, I wonder, would there be a need for discussion?
Many people in London, Middlesex County, Stratford, and the scattering
of small towns, villages, and townships in the area are familiar with
the Lake Huron shoreline. The tourism, family, education and health
care ties are strong. Bruce County and the entire Lake Huron
shoreline, from Grand Bend north to Tobermory rely heavily on this
area for its tourism economy. Londoners are among the 40 million
people who rely on the Great Lakes for their water supply.

So, if you’re not aware that three municipalities in Bruce County and
a fourth in Huron County are in a struggle to win the affection of
Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), you should be.

The result could mean that more than two million used nuclear fuel
bundles will be buried not far from where you live.

The counties have spent millions positioning themselves as Ontario’s
natural retreat and Ontario’s West Coast and millions more attracting
visitors to come here to enjoy the lake, the beaches, the natural
environment, the fishing rivers and streams, the cottages.

Suddenly, these towns and their municipal council soul mates have
taken a sharp turn from their vision of what is right. The questions
remain: How did this new direction come about? What is the new agenda?
Who will dissect the exaggerated benefits of the nuclear waste
organization? Who will examine the risks? Who will tell us the truth?

The back story, as I think some would say in today’s journalism, is
how did governments around the world, citizens like us around the world, science and the nuclear industry, turn a blind eye to the huge
buildup of nuclear waste for more than 40 years as we enjoyed the
fruits of nuclear power.
The only solution remains a primitive one: bury it. The proponents of
the deep geological repository (that’s what the NWMO calls it) will
quarrel with that characterization as they also quarrel with use of
the word “dump.” So I will allow that it will be a very fancy hole in
the ground.

But the nuclear waste dangers will remain for thousands of years, longer than civilization itself. And right next to the largest fresh-water lake system in the world.

In the absence of debate, transparency and independent benefit/risk
analysis, many questions remain:

When so much is at stake, how can a “host community” be defined by the
narrow boundaries of small-town Ontario, like Saugeen Shores,
Brockton, Huron Kinloss, South Bruce and Central Huron?

When and how does a host community become “willing?”

Apart from the untested health and safety risks, what about stigma?
Many Canadians are familiar with the Yucca Mountain fiasco in the U.S.
where several studies and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld a jury
decision to award damages for perceived loss of property values based
on public perception of fear, fear of the transportation of high-level
nuclear waste. None of this is accounted by the NWMO.

Even the North American Free Trade Agreement raises the question of
whether a national repository could be open to storage of U.S. used
nuclear fuel.

Still, nuclear waste needs a solution. Bruce Power in Kincardine will
soon announce the restart of two reactors, making it the largest
nuclear power facility in the world. Along with that achievement,
though, is the on-site storage of 40% or more of Canada’s lethal
high-level nuclear waste. And with expanded capacity the spent fuel
pile will continue to grow.

Many technical experts, including the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, raise the idea of storage in a permanent repository in a
central area with low population density. Doesn’t sound like Southern
Ontario.

May 26, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, environment, wastes