Monday, March 26, 2007

Diane Finley's Plan(?) for a Nuclear Nanticoke

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, there’s a bigass shitstorm brewin’ in my neighbourhood — Nanticoke. Ginty’s all gung-ho on nuke power fer Ontariariario. They’re talkin’ about turnin’ Nanticoke into a nuke plant.

Scotty Tribe is tellin' about a dumbass idea t' bury spent nuke fuel in the Canajun Shield. I gotta wonder if this great idea o’ storin’ radioactive pollution in the Shield ain’t mostly a pre-emptive strike against the anti-nuke argument concernin’ nuclear waste.

Diane Finley’s all gooey over the Nuclear Nanticoke idea. She an’ the MPP an’ the local mayors is all gettin’ the royal ass-kissin’ treatment from the nuke industry lobbyists. Residents is gettin’ one-sided “information” meetings set up by the Chamber of Commerce where there’s the CEO of Bruce (he’s also pres of the Cdn Nuclear Association) as the one an’ only spokesperson/expert. Haldimand County council already passed a resolution welcomin’ a nuke plant. Nanticoke sets just across the Norfolk line in Haldimand.

There's a meetin' in Port Dover on Wednesday an' there's at least gonna be one feller there from Greenpeace. I'll be goin'. I'm hopin' Diane'll be there. I wanna ask Minister Finley about somethin' in her press release --

The next step in the plan to bring the nuclear power investment to Haldimand and Norfolk includes holding information meetings around the two counties.
What plan?

I been hearin' Ginty say nothin's gonna happen without local consent but now I'm hearin' there's a plan t' bring nukes t' Nanticoke. I wanna know who's plan it is an' what are the details an' why ain't we had any say-so in decidin' if there oughta be nuke investment in our county.

It’s sure as hell lookin’ like they’re tryin’ t’ cram a nuclear Nanticoke down our throats.



Rosie said...

I work with radioisotopes so I'm hardly one to be freaking out about radiation....however, I prefer CO2 and oil dependence to nuclear. At least the CO2 causes gradual earth changes. Nuclear waste is so....permanent. And nothing makes a great "terrorist" target like a nuclear reactor on/near a water way that feeds a large proportion of Canada's population. hmmm....I'm starting to feel a little paranoid.

bigcitylib said...

Other than the "rammed down the throat aspect", how much does this bother you? I would be probably willing to reconsider nuclear. You can probably store the waste a 100 years or so until you figure out what to do with it. Whereas GW solutions kind of need to happen real soon.

JimBobby said...

"Other than the "rammed down the throat aspect", how much does this bother you?"

It bothers me a lot.

Nuclear power is not the answer t' global warming. To replace all of its current oil, gas and coal use, the world would have to build about 80,000 medium-sized reactors. It would take over 200 years to build them even at the rate of one a day, and the cost would be staggering. And common sense tells us that we must not trade one environmental problem for another.

The projected time frame for nuclear conversion in Nanticoke ranges from 8 - 14 years. Much quicker, cheaper, less-objectionable methods are available. If we put billions into nukes, we take away precious funding that could be used for a better solution.

Nuclear power generation is not emission-free as often claimed by industry advocates and also by Mrs. Finley in that press release I quoted.

"Routine emissions from nuclear reactors include a number of different elements such as carbon-14 and tritium. The long half-lives of these radioactive elements (5730 years for carbon-14 and 12.3 years for tritium) allow them to accumulate in the environment and in living tissue. Over the years, leaks around nuclear reactors in Canada have raised levels of tritium, a known carcinogen, well above background levels. [2]

Spent fuel from CANDU reactors contains over 200 deadly radioactive elements - byproducts of the fission process - including uranium, plutonium, cesium, and strontium. Plutonium, for example, has a half-life of 24,400 years. Other waste byproducts have half-lives as long as 710,000 years (uranium235) or 15.8 million years (iodine129). High-level nuclear waste will remain toxic for periods far longer than recorded human history." Sierra Club

Do I need to get into the use of nuke waste and fuel as contaminants in a dirty bomb?

Many countries have phased out or are in the process of phasing out nuclear power generators. They have proven to be too costly, too unreliable (several of Ontario's existing reactors are either kaput or awaiting $billion+ repairs.), too dangerous and too unpopular with citizens.

I believe there are only 2 reactors being built presently in the entire world - one in Finland and one in Taiwan. These were the first new starts in something like 25-30 years. The industry spends much of its corporate energy attempting to woo governments because w/o massive subsidies, nuclear cannot be implemented.


Nuclear installations are, by law, free from financial liability in the case of a nuclear accident. Private property insurance specifically excludes nuclear accidents from all homeowner and farm policies. It is not purchasable at any price. In the event of an accident forcing residents to abandon their property, there is absolutely zero compensation available.

The industry has already been using "temporary" waste storage while it supposedly tries to find permanent solutions. This has been happening since the very first nuke plant went online 50 years ago. It's an accident waiting to happen.

I won't go on and on any more... but I could.