Nuclear Free Alberta is a welcome addition to the progressive world of blog. Let's educate ourselves to quickly become personal, community, industry and national energy conservation leaders and by developing massive sustainable, economic alternate energy supplies. We can all
help do this by moving together, towards healthier and more satisfying life styles for ourselves and families.
Juan Siglo
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Nuclear Energy Info (mostly Alberta related)
I'd like to post a comment with some reference info for everyone.
Cheers,
Cameron Wigmore
- - - - -
QUESTIONS from a friend about the proposed nuclear reactors in Alberta...
1) This $6.2 billion dollar estimate being tossed around... what cost estimate level is this? Have Alberta specific and location specific factors been taken into account? Since this number has been floated for months now - before a location was "picked"- I would suggest this number is subject to substantial upward revisions.
2) What capacity (output) must be contracted for this facility to be eligible for financing? Perhaps over 90%? Someone in the Corporate Finance world would have a better understand than I about this. What are Energy Alberta's assets (if any) and do investors have 1 billion to finance this, let alone 6.2 billion?
3) Why did members in Peace River support this project? Were there any "advanced" "meetings" with Energy Alberta?
4) What is the safety record of this Wayne Henuset and his other businesses?
5) Who will pay for any cost overruns? Since Energy Alberta has also claimed that tax payers will not pay for any of this... I would be curious how they plan on building a "First of a Kind" nuclear power plant with no cost overruns?
6) How much money has AECL already spent subsidizing this company?
- end anonymous questions -
- - - - -
LINK:
http://www.davidswann.ca/news_issues_archive/causefactsheetnuclearpower.pdf
- - - - -
Friends and colleagues:
You may be interested in this e-mail from Pat McNamara about a book he is releasing this week on Port Hope. In the early 1930's a radium refinery was built at Port Hope and tons of uranium-bearing wastes accumulated around the town. During WWII Canada was approached by UK and USA to make that left-over uranium available for the atomic bomb project. The company was quietly taken over by the Canadian government and the refinery was used to process uranium from Great Bear Lake (Deline) and from the Congo (wastes that had been stored on Long Island near New York) to fuel the uranium enrichment plants at Oak Ridge that produced the explosive for the Hiroshima
bomb, and also to fuel the nuclear reactors at Hanford Washington that produced the plutonium for the Trinity test and the Nagasaki bomb. After the war Canadian uranium production boomed on military contracts and mines opened up, first in the Northwest Territories and Northern Saskatchewan, then in Northern Ontario (the Elliot Lake region). All of this uranium was refined at Port Hope. By 1959 uranium had become the fourth largest export from Canada, after wheat, hardwoods, and pulp -- and it was all for the bomb program. In 1975, a scandal erupted when it was discovered that 100s
of homes were badly contaminated with radioactive wastes from the government-owned uranium refinery, an elementary school had to be evacuated because the levels of radon in the cafeteria were higher than those allowed in uranium mines, and three waste dumps were in a lamentable state with radioactive wastes leaching into water and being tracked out of the dump sites on the tires of dump trucks, etc. etc. Just a bit of background....
Gordon Edwards.
Forward and copy as widely as possible. Thank You
Port Hope - Canada’s Nuclear Wasteland
This book is about the residents of Port Hope screaming out for protection from the Canadian Government. Our elected officials and the nuclear regulatory bodies have sacrificed the health of Port Hope residents to protect the nuclear industry since the start of the atomic age in the 1940s.
Port Hope has had a longer exposure to radioactive contamination and its lethal effects than any community on Earth. Uranium ore and its waste products have been hauled along our streets and processed in our harbour since 1932, or 13 years before the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Japan.
We have 3.5 million cubic metres (4.6 million cubic yards) of radioactive waste spread under our homes, schools, parks and in our harbour. Port Hope is saturated with radioactive, heavy metal and chemical contamination. We also face daily emissions of uranium, ammonia, nitrous oxide, arsenic and fluorides from 2 nuclear processing facilities in the middle of our town of 12,500 people. Neither facility has a buffer zone around them to protect us.
The Canadian Government refuses to conduct comprehensive health studies they first promised Port Hope in 1979 despite troubling results released in Health Canada’s 2000 and 2002 indicator studies:
Four times the expected number of brain cancers in children from 1971-1985
100 excess female deaths from circulatory disease from 1986-1997
Five times the provincial rate of nasal cancers in men from 1971-1985
Two times the provincial rate of female brain cancers from 1986-1997
48% elevation for all childhood cancer deaths
In the absence of government health studies, the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee has been raising money through silent auctions and book sales to pay for biological testing of Port Hope residents. This is outrageous in a country as rich as Canada.
I became involved in nuclear issues in 2004 after I saw the results of the 1978 radon testing conducted by the Canadian Government on the elementary school my daughters attended. Radon levels under the kindergarten and gymnasium were 125 times higher than the allowable level. The test results were never made public. The Atomic Energy Control Board gave Dr. Powers School a clean bill of health and never spoke of it again.
I was not a nuclear activist in 2004. I was a carpenter who volunteered to improve the playground at my daughters’ school. I knew nothing about radioactive waste nor did I have any intention of looking into it. In the intervening three-and-a-half years, I have spent 7000-8000 hours studying and researching every aspect of the nuclear industry and radioactive waste. I have made over 100 presentations totaling 200,000 words to MPs, MPPs (MLAs), Municipal Councils, Federal and Provincial agencies, scientists, professors, university classes and our local School Board on the dangers we face in Port Hope.
This book is easy to read but difficult to stomach. It’s hard to accept that our Canadian Government has knowingly been harming and killing our children and our friends in Port Hope for over 60 years to keep its actions secret. This is the story of the nuclear violation of Port Hope by the Canadian Government.
The cost of the book is $20. Part of the proceeds will be donated to the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee to help pay for biological testing of Port Hope residents. To order the book:
Pat McNamara, RR#1, Site 10, P.O. Box 85
Grande Prairie Alberta, T8V 2Z8
- - - - -
http://greencameron.blogspot.com/2007/07/nuclear-energy-not-needed-not-wanted.html
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/2273
- - - - -
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2007/08/31/4462407.html
- - - -
http://www.whitecourtstar.com/Letters%20to%20the%20Editor/327257.html
Nuclear nothing to fear
Wednesday August 01, 2007
To the Editor;
First let me say that nuclear power is probably not the best option for electricity generation in Alberta. Why? Because we have coal and lots of it. Unfortunately the global warming scare-mongers will try to scare people into being against coal fired power plants.
So now the nuclear energy industry, not surprisingly, is knocking on the door. This, of course brings out the anti-nuclear crowd using many of the same tactics they accuse the nuclear industry of using. For example, cherry picking experts and commentators who agree with, or support their beliefs.
One of the reasons given against nuclear power is, "What would the terrorists think?" Good God. Are we to base our whole society and lifestyle, our economy, our future based on what madmen a world away might think and do?
Then there have also been comments on waste being used for military purposes. Yes, many countries may use this material but not because it is slightly radioactive. It is used because it is very hard.
Next is the use of some vague statistics supporting increased cancer risks around nuclear sites. If I have learned anything in my 42 years it is that life causes cancer. It seems that every week or two something new is found that causes increased risk of cancer.
The anti-nuclear people never mention France and nuclear power. It is not convenient for their argument to mention very successful nuclear power
programs.
At PBS.org, the Frontline show has an interesting discussion on Nuclear power in France.
Japan, recent earthquake included, also has an exceptional nuclear power program. Look it up. Don't be scared.
Robert Sakovich
Whitecourt, AB
- - - - -
(note: ‘global warming scare-mongers’?!? This person should try these links:
Please see the material at the following links for the facts on climate change.
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Common Arguments By Skeptics
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/skeptic-arguments.html
Waste being used for military purposes. Yes, it is called DU weapons (depleted uranium) and I have more info on this at my blog. DU is very hard, and radioactive, and while Canada doesn’t use DU weapons, other countries that purchase the materials from us do. Some might consider it our moral obligation to ensure that our country doesn’t contribute to the increase in the use of DU weapons.
Belittling cancer might fool some, but those who know won’t fall for this spin. Cancer rates these days are skyrocketing because of what we are exposed to during our lives. Cancer rates in males are about 50%. This isn’t easily dismissed as ‘life’ causing cancer. See this link for more info:
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/cancer/
While France has a large nuclear power program, I wouldn’t call it a success just yet. Call it a work in progress. The nuclear waste sits in open storage areas for years, and much of it is reprocessed in an energy intensive process to further enrich the waste, creating rare, exotic and highly toxic manmade poisons that will be around for hundreds and even thousands of years. There is no material that can contain radioactive waste. It can eat through anything. France is experiencing real problem with their program. See my blog for more details.
In the recent earthquake in Japan the reactor damaged there (didn’t they know to prepare for earthquakes?) was severely damaged and may be shut down for a year or more. There was a massive amount of radioactive material dumped into the ocean. If this is Alberta's idea of safe, reliable and clean, then I certainly don’t support nuclear. Don’t be scared; just say no to nuclear energy.
- - - - -
http://www.whitecourtstar.com/Letters%20to%20the%20Editor/327256.html
Nuclear power a safe option
Wednesday August 01, 2007
To the Editor;
Re: No nuclear power in Alberta, July 18, 2007
There have been more people killed, more environmental devastation and more long-term health links related to oil and gas exploration, production and of their emissions than nuclear power will ever touch.
Instead of political parties just deciding to argue against opposition for the sake of arguing, why don’t they come up with some intelligent, well-thought-out alternatives and bring them to the next election?
Nuclear power is safe, it is efficient and less harmful to the environment than hydrocarbons.
It is a step forward. Lets go with the alternatives that other countries have proven to work.
Chris Steffensen
Whitecourt, AB.
-----
But this plan for nuclear is to further the production of hydrocarbon fuels. Nuclear is now an outdated technology.
It has been shown – and many experts agree with this strategy – that Canada can meet its energy needs through a combination of a reduction in our consumption levels using energy efficiency and conservation measures, as well as a significant increase in our renewable energies production and usage. We can make the switch in direction as quickly and as complete as we want, but it should be done soon. Doing this would also create thousands of jobs. Why isn’t our current government pushing for this? I imagine that the nuclear industry lobbyists are a wealthy and powerful group. If the people don’t push for it, who should the people’s government do so?
-----
http://cgi.bowesonline.com/pedro.php?id=11&x=story&xid=325653
Keeping open mind about nuclear not easy
Wednesday July 25, 2007
To the Editor;
When I first heard of a possible nuclear power plant in Whitecourt, I made a conscious decision to keep an open mind.
I’m the first to admit my ignorance concerning nuclear power and only have memories of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to form a half-baked opinion. (No pun intended)
I had hoped an open mind would give the Energy Alberta Corporation a chance to convince me this would be a good think for Whitecourt. However, thanks to media spin doctoring, rumours, evasive answers and a general lack of information, my mind is slowly closing.
When previous commitments didn’t allow me to attend the town hall meeting, I was sure there would be others. There haven’t been any Whitecourt meetings since then, but the "powers that be" sound certain of overwhelming support from our town.
Based on one town meeting? Our elected officials? Media reports? Huh? I would like to see a few more town hall meetings before EAC, town council or the media decides if the citizens of Whitecourt support the idea or not.
I would also like to discourage the EAC re: complaining over the lack of mailed questions from the public (letter to the editor, July 18).
I don’t believe it’s up to the citizens of Whitecourt to track you down.
I believe the ball is in your court to come here, but bring representatives that can answer our pertinent questions.
Gayle Row
Whitecourt, AB
http://cgi.bowesonline.com/pedro.php?id=11&x=story&xid=325659
Residents need information, not sales pitch
Wednesday July 25, 2007
To the Editor;
Re:Energy Alberta using letters to fuel Propaganda.
My intent in my previous letter was not to correspond with Energy Alberta but to raise community awareness.
Energy Albeta "claims " it is not their intent to mislead. If this was true why are "sales pitches" being promoted as public information sessions?
This completely goes against informed consent whereby people have the opportunity to receive true and unbiased information from professionals in all related fields, and to hear about the associated risks to personal health, environment and livelihood.
There is much vital information being suppressed by Energy Alberta and Woodlands reps.
Although Energy Alberta may welcome my questions I am informed enough to understand it is their goal to further this proposal regardless of facts and evidence available from countless scientists, doctors, environmentalists and politicians across the world.
This was made blatantly obvious in the one-sided, poorly-presented, public "information’ sessions.
Energy Alberta claim they would not knowingly lie to anyone. I find this hard to swallow as I am looking at the handouts from them toting the CANDU ACR-1000 as "tried and true technology" when in truth it is no more than a design on paper, a completely experimental reactor which has never before been licensed.
Does Whitecourt truly want to be the test site for an experimental, untested reactor, twice the size of other CANDUs'?
If it is not their intent to mislead then why are residents not alerted to the fact that once they are in the nuclear program they would also be considered a storage site for nuclear waste from all over Canada?
Energy Alberta stated it is "unfortunate that they were unable to answer all of my questions to my satisfaction."
There were many at the meeting who felt serious concerns were not addressed.
Should it not be up to the developer and council pushing this project to address questions and concerns to the satisfaction of the public? Is it not up to them to "prove" they are sufficiently educated in nuclear energy and the associated risks before they make such serious decisions on our behalf?
If they are such experts on nuclear energy that they feel entitled to approve this proposal, should they not have the ability and education to respond to all concerns?
I contacted sources such as Nobel prize winner Helen Caldicott and the Nuclear Policy Research Foundation , the Pembina Institute and Dr. Gordon Edward of the Canadian Coalition For Nuclear Responsibility, and while Energy Alberta was unable to answer serious concerns these groups of unbiased and acclaimed professionals were more than able to answer all my questions.
If the purpose of public meetings is education and information I would suggest that council invite such specialists in the field of Nuclear Energy to consult with the public.
I have e-mailed council and our MP with contacts for numerous acclaimed spokespeople, (doctors, scientists, Nobel prize winners, environmentalists) many of whom would be willing to present in our area and have received no response.
I would suggest that residents question the motives of council in suppressing this information and demand that all risks be sufficiently addressed before proceeding further.
Melissa Brade
Onoway AB
Open letter to Whitecourt leaders
Wednesday July 25, 2007
To Mayor Trevor and Whitecourt Council regarding nuclear power
I have never seen such irresponsible action on the part of elected representatives.
Look up any of the government’s own reports and see the long term health problems being created in Ontario in particular, the toxic waste water being dumped in the Great lakes, left to pollute for tens of thousands of years. Nice gift for the future of all our children.
Lawsuits are already underway in the southern states, in towns located near nuclear plants, for cancer rates now three to four times higher than anywhere else in the whole of the States.
The link www.nuclearfreealberta.ca has all the independent research done in economics as well as the environmental issues. This advocacy group created by everyday John Q. public will become the biggest citizen action ever seen in Alberta and I would hope soon all across Canada.
Please take off the one sided company blinders and do your own research, which you should have done long ago for the sake of the citizens you are supposed to represent. How about just for your own children?
Art Line,
Jasper, AB.
http://cgi.bowesonline.com/pedro.php?id=11&x=story&xid=325654
Disappointed with government
Wednesday July 25, 2007
To the Editor;
Living in Canada, I’ve always harbored the opinion that we had a "good government". By good, what I meant was, a government that cares about its people, its future, the sustainability of its resources, and that didn’t sacrifice health, safety, and the environment for money.
Lately, I have been shocked and embarrassed and depressed by many decisions in this country. I was not surprised to see many of the worst decisions be made in Alberta.
If Alberta goes nuclear, I will not support it in any way. I will move away and take my taxes elsewhere.
Think of how many people likely share my opinion. Those that care about themselves, their children, the environment, the good things that Alberta could have to offer.
I hope everyone keeps donating to the Cancer Foundation, because we’re going to need a lot of help in the future.
Beth Dauk,
Jasper, AB
http://cgi.bowesonline.com/pedro.php?id=11&x=story&xid=323761
No nuclear power in Alberta
Wednesday July 18, 2007
To the Editor;
I am alarmed that the government is even entertaining the idea of nuclear power in Alberta. There has been virtually no public debate on this costly and dangerous proposition, and yet the façade of public support is being spread by media that is often influenced by corporations that would stand to benefit.
There are reasons why no insurance company touches nuclear power (far too risky). There are reasons why no private company has ever built a nuclear power plant without massive public subsidies (far too expensive).
Waste has been accumulating from nuclear power plants for the last 45 years or so, yet this problem has still not been resolved. Uranium mining also leaves a terrible legacy of toxic tailings.
It is ironic that some proponents of nuclear power are using the global warming argument for it, when really the purpose of a plant here in Alberta would be to meet the huge energy demand of tar sands exploitation – very dirty energy indeed. It makes no sense.
There are alternatives. We need to be expanding solar and wind energy, not putting limits on these energy forms, like Alberta currently does. We also need to consume less energy, period. Governments need to shift the tax and incentive system from the current one in which oil and gas is heavily subsidized, to a system that taxes carbon and gives incentives to cleaner and greener ways of living.
The present system encourages excessive consumerism and waste. In light of the global environmental crisis that we are in, this is ludicrous. We need to change direction now. And please, no nuclear power!
Monika Schaefer,
federal Green Party candidate
for Yellowhead Riding
- - - - -
http://www.green.ca/en/releases/01.08.2007
01.08.2007
Greens take aim at nuclear: Not safe and not a solution to the climate crisis
Canada must phase out nuclear and support renewable energy
OTTAWA – The Green Party today renewed its call for a rapid phase-out of nuclear energy and a moratorium on uranium mining and refining in Canada. The call comes as locals prepare to take action against prospecting by mining companies in both Ontario and New Brunswick. In New Brunswick, CVRD-Inco plans to prospect for uranium in a Moncton watershed. In Eastern Ontario, Frontenac Ventures is exploring for uranium on Algonquin territory in North Frontenac amid protests. There are also renewed threats of uranium mining in Nova Scotia, despite a province-wide ban.
“The Green Party opposes the nuclear fuel chain and we are very concerned that across Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s nuclear agenda constitutes a new national threat to our country,” said Green leader Elizabeth May. “We reject any plans for nuclear energy expansion on the basis that it is environmentally damaging, not economically sound and is inextricably linked to nuclear weapons proliferation.”
Ms. May added that Canada urgently needs to end reliance on nuclear energy to protect areas from the environmental and health hazards posed by uranium mining.
“Nuclear reactors cost billions to build and maintain yet are unreliable and would not be able to exist without government support in the form of costly subsidies,” said Andrew Lewis, Natural Resources critic for the Green Party. “On top of this, nuclear energy produces massive amounts of greenhouse gasses – it is not a solution to the climate crisis. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn should end costly subsidies to the nuclear industry, phase out existing reactors and focus on conserving energy, improving efficiency and developing renewables.”
Ms. May also pointed out that because uranium mining and nuclear energy are closely linked to nuclear weapons development, phasing out nuclear energy is crucial to the Green Party’s goal of global nuclear military disarmament.
- - - - -
Sheerly by accident, I ran into Premier Ed Stelmach while walking home from buying groceries yesterday. Like many other members of CAUSE, I'd been getting from daily notices of his itinerary in Calgary for several days via email from Leila Darwish at the Sierra Club. I deleted yesterday's without even looking at them, however, because my day was looking too full. But when I saw his tour bus on my way to The Urban Baker (they have more interesting and fresher bread than Co-op.... and they were sold out, as I soon learned) I decided to stop and say hello.
I walked into Leah Lawrence's campaign office, which held a couple or three dozen friendly and confident sounding Tories; I expect that most of them hold a different vision than I of what Alberta could and should look like; at least that's what it felt like. I don't doubt that my visit may have felt and unfolded differently if I'd gone in with an attitude of fellowship rather than adversity towards them. Now, there's a project for next time!
I approached Premier Stelmach when he had a moment. I introduced myself as a member of CAUSE, and said I don't like the idea of producing the most toxic and lethal waste ever devised by mankind right here in Alberta, and said I'm passionate about energy sustainability. As we talked about various wasteful habits of Albertans and I brought up the value of BC's new carbon tax, I was interrupted by Ms. Lawrence popping up to introduce herself. I already knew who she was, and I asked her to let me finish my conversation with Mr. Stelmach. It didn't last long, as he proceeded to give me his "bottom line", before lining up with Ms. Lawrence and their supporters for some photos.
I left feeling dismissed. I felt a bit disappointed in myself for perhaps being rude to Ms. Lawrence. And I felt small and very ineffectual. In oil-rich Alberta, in a critical time for action against climate change, a couple of months after Stelmach told us there will be no "touching the brake" of development - including the oilsands - in Alberta, and two days away from our provincial election, it seems we cannot afford ineffectual opposition. On this Saturday afternoon, I walked home heavy of heart and wishing I could have done more; wishing I could be more. I stayed in that space for a couple of hours and then, later in the evening, I took some comfort remembering a couple of my favorite quotes.
Author Lloyd Alexander wrote, "A twig can turn a flood, but the twig must be well placed." I realized a couple of years ago that being well placed means more than being in the right place and right time. Proper placement begins in my own heart with an attitude of acceptance rather than judgement of myself; recognizing that I have a place in the world and I need not be other than what I am, whether stronger or smarter, more articulate or influential; these judgements are what disable my joy and my opportunity for long-term effectiveness. Being well placed also means being one of many twigs, supporting each other and doing together what none can do alone. I am glad to participate in CAUSE, giving what gifts I have to oppose plans for nuclear power plants in Alberta, knowing that nuclear power is neither safe, nor efficient, nor cost-effective, nor necessary. And I trust that others will take up the work when I have done what I can.
I remembered writer and activist Danusha Veronika Goska, who wrote "When we study the biographies of our heroes, we learn that they spent years in preparation, doing tiny, decent things before one historic moment propelled them to center stage and used them to tilt empires." Was this not true of Rosa Parks, who spent years in the civil rights movement, who had repeatedly sat in front seats on buses before she was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama? Was it not true of Mahatma Gandhi who walked his talk for decades, who walked many hundreds of miles on his salt march to the sea? Was it not true of British Parliamentarian William Wilberforce, who put forward proposals 27 times to abolish the slave trade, and finally saw it succeed on the 28th? So I continue doing my tiny, decent things each day and trust that there are forces and events afoot in the world that I do not yet see, but which will turn the tide someday.
I will leave you with one last quote which I'd forgotten until sitting down at my computer tonight. Bonaro Overstreet, too, gives me comfort and strength.
To one who doubts the worth of doing anything if you can’t do everything.
You say the little efforts that I make will do no good: they never will prevail
to tip the hovering scale where Justice hangs in the balance.
I don’t think I ever thought they would.
But I am prejudiced beyond debate
in favor of my right to choose which side
shall feel the stubborn ounces of my weight.
Bonaro W. Overstreet
submitted March 2nd '08
Roger L. Gagne
I was at the "Sun & Salsa" festival in Calgary where there was an anti-nuclear booth. I bought a copy of the book "Canada's Deadly Secret" and I intend to read it soon, despite that fact that I am very pro-nuclear. Later in the afternoon I returned to the booth with my copy of "Power to Save the World - The Truth about Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens. I offered to lend this book to the people manning the booth. All I asked is that they mail it back to me when done. Not one would accept the offer. It is a pity that your people are so closed-minded as to refuse to read an opposing view point.
Eric L. Hanson
No to Nuclear! Burn Coal Instead!
Damn hippies, let me know when solar power is as cheap per watt as nuclear and i'll join your misguided cause. Until then, keep spreading your misinformation, burning fossil fuels, and spending ten times as much for renewable energy.
Is is not somewhat of a misnomer using the solgan "Keeping Alberta Nuclear Free", when there is a 20kw pool type reactor in downtown Edmonton?
When 89% of the people in the area to be affected do not want nuclear power, I must raise the question: How many pronuclear people would like to have a nuclear reactor in their own backyards? All the people I have come across have said, 'no'. I would like to be able to raise a family in my northern home without having to worry about emissions from what is (supposedly) clean energy. Oh, and to any who say that antinuclear people are close minded; you should have thought of that when the government decided to lie through their teeth to the people, and democracy was forgotten by our own representatives and those who ought to know us best. If you can answer all of that, I will be more than happy to elaborate.
Post a Comment