nuclear-news

Michel Duguay is a Professor and the University of Laval. He speaks to us about the benefits of moving towards a nuclear-free future.

“Industry knows that a meltdown could take place”

The biggest risk with CANDU technology reactors is the positive coefficient of nuclear re activity is if a pipe breaks like the Pikering A plant from 1983. If the water cooling is lost the nuclear reaction can be accelerated within one or two seconds and the Thermal Power can go up a factor of five and start melting down the tubes. The nuclear industry has tried to compensate for this but has not done well.

the CNSC has not been following the acts laid down by the nuclear safety act of 1997. The CNSC has failed to inform the public of the technical issues that might lead to a meltdown.

The CSNC also have not given the numbers concerning the likely probabilities of the consequences of a nuclear accident.

Renewable energies would be effective in Ontario and would be available to the whole province, not just part of the province.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb-wnksTv1I

Mouvement Vert Mauricie
written submission to The Joint Environmental Review Panel for theEnvironmental Assessment of the Darlington New Build Project proposed by Ontario Power Generation
February 22, 2011

“The detailed technical analyses provided by Frank Greening and Michel Duguay in the last two sections of this submission clearly demonstrate that the potential for catastrophic nuclear accidents still remains. Years of effort by nuclear scientists and nuclear engineers have failed to produce reactors
that are inherently safe. As the Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs reported in 1980:
It is not right to say that a catastrophic accident is impossible….
The worst possible accident … could involve the spread of radioactive poisons over large areas, killing thousands immediately, killing others through increasing susceptibility to cancer, risking genetic defects that could affect future generations, and possibly contaminating large land areas for
future habitation or cultivation.

The Safety of Ontario’s Nuclear Reactors: Final Report
Select Committee on Ontario Hydro A airs”
Toronto, June 1980.

Michel Duguay Comments
Reduced Safety Margins in CANDU Nuclear Reactors
1: OPG´s Decision not to refurbish Pickering B 65
2: Sixteen Safety Issues in August 2009 CNSC Report 66
3: Safety Margins ´eroded to an unacceptable degree´ 67
4. Positive CVR coefficient, an inherent design weakness 70
5: The Discarding of the low void reactivity fuel (LVRF) Solution 73
6: The Ultimate Consequences of a LBLOCA 75
7: Moody´s June 2009 warning about nuclear investments 77
8: Two Key Decisions by the federal government 78
9: Alan Kupcis´s Legacy 80
10: Tricky Operation of a CANDU reactor 82
11: Conclusion 83
12: Alternatives to Nuclear – Renewable Energy and Smart Grids 84

from this report from 2011

http://www.ccnr.org/MVM_final.pdf

What Does the Nuclear Industry
Think of CCNR?

In 1985, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited undertook to compile a secret dossier on anti-nuclear groups in Canada. For this purpose AECL hired a researcher who travelled Canada, visiting the groups in question. He masqueraded as a free-lance journalist who claimed to be writing an article for some respectable magazine such as Harrowsmith.

This individual became friendly with the key members in different groups, having coffee with them and asking lots of “human-interest” type questions about them and their organization. All of this information went into the dossier being prepared for AECL, under various headings such as: OBJECTIVES, TARGET ISSUES, FUNDING SOURCES, MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS, STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, THREATS TO AECL, and OPPORTUNITIES FOR AECL.

Of the twenty groups who were identified, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility occupied the place of honour as the number one anti-nuclear group in the country. Below is an unedited reproduction of the assessment of CCNR contained in the AECL dossier.

http://www.ccnr.org/ccnr_by_aecl.html