Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

Whooee! Well friends and foes, I posted up a big comment to yesterday's post and I'm dragging it out for today's post. I got the more easily decipherable James Robert to write most of it. BigCityLib asked me if I was mostly concerned about the way nuclear's being crammed down our throats or if my objections are against nuclear, in general.

Nuclear power is not the answer to 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.(Source)

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 Diane Finley --

"...a nuclear facility with its zero emitting technology..."

Minister Finley is getting her information solely from industry advocates. The Sierra Club of Canada informs us that nuclear energy is by no means emmission free.

"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.

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

What about the increased availability of nuke waste and fuel as contaminants in a dirty bomb or even a "clean" A-bomb?

The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.

As Dr. Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado points out, "Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power."

2 In order to get plutonium for weapons, one needs a reactor, whether it is a "research" reactor (such as the one which provided India with the fissile material for its first atomic bomb) or a commercial reactor. (Source)

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 without massive subsidies, nuclear cannot be implemented.

Waht about the risk to nearby people and property?

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 about 50 years ago. It's an accident waiting to happen.

What about Return on Investment of taxpayer money?

Over a fifty year period (from 1953 to 2002), government subsidies to AECL Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ) totaled $17.5 billion (in 2001 dollars). Cost overruns on the last nuclear station to be built in Ontario at Darlington were in the billions of dollars. Debt incurred by Ontario Hydro (the predecessor to OPG) in the operations of its power reactors amounted to over $35 billion dollars. The public cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors and attempting to contain the waste products over extended timeframes has yet to be determined. Sierra Club

And now, McGuinty is at it again along with the support of MP Finley and presumably the federal government. The financial situation vis-a-vis Canadian investment is typical of the poor ROI experienced by other countries, like the US.

The Nanticoke coal generator is only about 35 years old. If replaced by a nuke plant, the existing plant will be totally demolished. This will cost millions. If we'd known 35 years ago what we know now, it would not have been built. We do know now all the reasons why building a multi-billion dollar nuclear facility is wrong-headed. In 50 years (the industry-projected life span of a new nuke plant), we'll be spending billions to decommission nuke plants.

About 3 years ago, a wind farm proposal came before Norfolk council and was approved. Those 70-80 windmills are already pumping out enough power for tens of thousands of homes. A multi-acre solar farm has just been announced and approved for development. It will come online before the drawings could be completed for a nuclear Nanticoke.

Reduction and energy efficiency are the real answers.

(N)uclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative -- energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion. If that $2 billion were instead spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install super-efficient lightbulbs and clothes dryers, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power would divert money away from better responses to global warming, thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential. (Source)

Don't forget, that's our money that Ontario is investing. We could be getting seven times better ROI.

James Robert (for JimBobby)

Canada to Renew Nuclear Ties With India

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, most everybody's heard the old phrase, "Once bitten, twice shy." In case you can't figger out what that means, it means if somebody's done you wrong once, there's a good chance they'll do you wrong again and you oughta be careful dealin' with 'em. It holds true whether you're talkin' about Golden Retrievers or double-dealin' belligerent countries.

Back 35 years ago, Canada sold Candu nuclear technology to India. Not long after that, India developed a nuclear weapon (uh huh, an atomic bomb) using the technology they acquired from our Candu. They admitted it and we stopped nuclear technology dealings with India. In the subsequent decades since India became a nuclear power, they have failed to sign on to the Non Proliferation agreement that most other nuclear powers have signed on to.

Now, Canadian crown corporation AECL is ready to start dealing with India once more. Has India become more stable and responsible since it developed a weapon of mass destruction? Have India and Pakistan settled their differences over Kashmir? Has India agreed to sign on to a non proliferation treaty? No, no, and no.

As usual, news items concerning AECL and the nuclear industry are routinely buried in the business section of the media. Here's the story from today's Globe:

Nuclear deal would allow AECL to renew Indian business ties
SHAWN MCCARTHY
From Friday's Globe and Mail
November 14, 2008 at 4:25 AM EST

OTTAWA — Federally owned AECL Ltd. is looking to re-enter the Indian market some 35 years after the south Asian giant shocked the world and brought about its own nuclear isolation by using Candu technology to build a bomb.

The federal government is currently negotiating a nuclear co-operation agreement with India that would allow AECL to re-establish business ties, despite concerns that India has not signed the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The negotiations come after Canada backed a decision by the international Nuclear Suppliers Group to provide an exemption for India that would allow it to develop civilian nuclear power even as it maintains its right to develop weapons without international scrutiny.

The United States lobbied hard to exempt India from the kinds of sanctions it imposes on Iran and North Korea, and has concluded its own nuclear co-operation agreement with India. France has also completed a nuclear co-operation agreement, and both countries are now openly competing with Russia to sell reactors there.

Critics complain that the West's special treatment of India will spark a new arms race with Pakistan and undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and argue Canada should hold out for stringent conditions in any bilateral accord.

In an interview from India, AECL chief executive Hugh MacDiarmid said the Crown-owned company is hopeful of getting major service work on the country's aging fleet of heavy-water reactors, and potentially even the sale of a new reactor.

The AECL group met with senior officials from India's Department of Atomic Energy, and from the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., which has said it intends to build or buy up to 20 reactors over the next 12 years.

"We've been greeted very warmly," Mr. MacDiarmid said, concluding a six-day visit to India and China. He said Indian heavy-water reactor technology has not kept pace with Western companies, and AECL - one of the few companies that also deal in heavy-water reactors - could help modernize it.

"They feel there is a mutual benefit to be had. We do believe there is potential for us to be marketing our reactor technology in this country," he said.

AECL's own future remains very much in doubt as the federal government is reviewing its ownership and considering selling off the 60-year-old Crown corporation, either entirely or to a minority partner. Yesterday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the government is looking at selling some Crown corporations - without mentioning names - in order to balance the federal books.

Whether it sells AECL or keeps it, Ottawa is keen to put the company on a stronger commercial footing, and that means ensuring it has access to growing emerging markets such as India's.

In addition to AECL's interest, Canada's broader nuclear industry is eager to see the Indian market open up to them, as is Cameco Corp., the Saskatchewan-based uranium producer that has been prevented from selling fuel to India.

Activist Ernie Regehr of Project Ploughshares said the Indian exemptions undermine the international Non-Proliferation Treaty by sending the message that countries can flout the rules and still co-operate on civilian nuclear uses. He worries the decision by the Nuclear Suppliers Group in September may reignite an arms race with Pakistan, which has reacted angrily to the move.

A spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs confirmed the two sides had "informal" discussions last month and expect to schedule formal sessions soon. She said Canada signalled its support for India's re-engagement with the broader nuclear-energy community when it backed the suppliers' group decision.

"India is a responsible democracy that shares with Canada the fundamental values of freedom, democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law," government spokesman Lisa Monette said. "India has made substantial non-proliferation and disarmament commitments to achieve the trust of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which were reiterated in a political statement on Sept. 5."

Mr. Regehr said India has made political commitments, such as agreeing not to test nuclear weapons, but has refused to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It has also insisted on the right to stockpile uranium, which Mr. Regehr says would provide it with an assured fuel supply should it again run afoul of the international suppliers group.

Australia, which along with Canada is one of the world's major uranium miners, is refusing to sell the fuel to India unless it signs the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Mr. Regehr said Canada should do likewise.

Well, King Steve says we gotta quit bein' so ideologically rigid and be more pragmatic. What could be more pragmatic than selling nuclear technology and materials to an eager customer? Step right up, folks. Canada's got nukes for sale. Yes, Mr. Terrist, how much do you bid?

JimBobby

Canada's nuclear waste management plan looks good on paper. Will it ever go beyond the planning stage?

Whooee! Well, friends an’ foes, the other day, I tweeted calling attention to an article in StraightGoods.com, Canadians can't afford Candu complacency, by Paul McKay. One of my Twitter followers took exception to a number of points in the article and since it’s dang tough to give a detailed response in 140 characters or less, I’m using this blog post to kick off a more in-depth discussion.

The first point of contention relates to a quote from Paul McKay’s artcle:

Some may contend that since our generation has already built two dozen Candu's that must be entombed some day, and created some 60,000 tonnes of lethal nuclear wastes, adding more is no big deal.

That might be plausible if there was a proven, safe method of dismantling defunct Candu reactors, and permanently isolating nuclear wastes for millenia. But there is not, and virtually no thought or resources are being devoted to such solutions.

Meanwhile, the Canadian inventory of hellishly dangerous radioactive materials grows — and that is a fact for which our grandchildren will almost certainly curse us.

The bold text is the part my Twitter friend took issue with. To dispute the veracity of McKay’s statement, his tweet linked to Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) website. According to the NWMO website, the “Government of Canada (GoC) selected Canada’s plan for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel in June 2007.”

Okay, so there’s a plan. The timing begs a question, though. We’ve been accumulating highly radioactive spent fuel since Canada’s first nuclear power plant (NPP) was commissioned in 1954. In the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s, most of Canada’s nuclear power plants were brought online and began creating 100’s of tonnes of waste annually. Doesn’t 2007 seem a bit late in the game to just be selecting a plan for dealing with such toxic and dangerous waste?

Considering the immediacy and severity of the waste problem, the mere fact that NWMO has a plan does not, at least to me, indicate a significant expenditure of thought or resources. Waiting until 60,000 tonnes of waste have accumulated on site at NPPs in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick before deciding on a plan borders on reckless endangerment… at least that’s how I see it.

So, how’s that plan progressing? Well, stage one of the plan is to find a willing host community that wants to have all of Canada’s nuclear waste stored underground nearby. Although NWMO and the GoC selected a plan back in 2007, they didn’t start actively soliciting for a willing host community until 2010. If – and it’s a big if – a willing host community comes forward and says it is willing to receive all present and future high-level nuclear waste, the geological conditions must be suitable. So, not only do we need a willing host community, that community must be located in an area with very specific physical attributes.

If the elusive willing community is found and if public resistance to harbouring deadly material is overcome, the plan then calls for building the deep geologic repository to safely contain the waste, isolated from ground water, for thousands of years.

Bruce Power's SWAT Team

Like the current stored spent fuel, the deep geologic repository will need to be kept secure by use of a well-equipped, well-armed security force. SWAT teams are on duty today safe-guarding our 60,000 tonnes of nuclear waste from those who could very easily fashion a dirty bomb from a small quantity of spent fuel.

Another big question: if the deep geologic repository is eventually built, how is highly radioactive waste going to be transported to the facility? Are the public highways and/or waterways to be used for carrying this deadly cargo? Will municipalities do as many European and American municipalities have done and declare themselves nuclear-free zones, thereby prohibiting the transportation of high level radioactive materials on their roads and highways?

Those 60,000 tonnes were created producing electricity that’s been used and paid for. Who pays for the construction of the waste storage facility? Who pays for the centuries of SWAT teams needed to secure that waste? Who pays for the transportation?

The expected lifespan of a nuclear power reactor is 40 years. That said, real life experience has shown that 25-30 years is more accurate. With costly, time-consuming refurbishments, it is conceivable that a reactor could deliver 60 years of service. The waste created during those 60 years, however, requires secure, safe storage for 100’s of years beyond the lifespan of the reactor. When the reactor is decommissioned, it obviously is no longer generating electricity… or revenue. There is a logical disconnect when we create an ongoing expense without creating an ongoing revenue source.

For what it’s worth, I can understand how this waste problem got to where it is. Back in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the energy sector was brimming with optimism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated that we could derive massive amounts of energy from tiny bits of nearly inexhaustible fuel. Nuclear electricity generation was going to make energy so inexpensive that it would be “too cheap to meter.”

The early investors, developers and scientists were aware of the problem posed by spent nuclear fuel. But they were understandably confident that a solution would be found relatively quickly. After all, the atomic age was upon us. Nuclear weapons proliferation and “Atoms for Peace” were both employing the world’s brightest minds. Remarkable strides had been made in the past 10 years. Einstein was involved, for heaven sakes. Surely, a small problem like spent fuel would be solved in short order. Five years was a widely accepted prediction.

Fast forward 50 years to 2011 – or 2007, if you prefer – and we’re not a whole lot further ahead when it comes to permanently storing waste. We’re keeping it in concrete and steel water-filled tanks and circulating cool water over it for anywhere from 1 to 10 years. At some point, it becomes cool enough to transfer to dry cask storage.  It is these dry casks that will be moved to that deep geologic repository… someday, somewhere, if a suitable location is found.

But hold on a minute. The waste inside the dry casks will remain hazardous to human health for thousands of years. How about the dry casks? How long are they expected to last? The manufacturers of the dry casks say they’re good for 100 years. Nuclear waste management professionals feel that’s a modest estimate and that the casks should be good for at least 150 to 200 years. What then?

I will concede that having a plan is better than not having a plan. But a plan is not a storage solution. It is a storage solution on paper. It requires a whole series of happy events to actually achieve fruition: willing host, suitable geology, continued public investment and perhaps most important, the forgiveness of future generations for saddling them with a radioactive toxic legacy.

The mere existence of a plan is held out by the nuclear industry as proof that the waste issue is being handled. In fact, the waste issue is only being temporarily handled and the permanent disposition of waste is still, almost inexplicably, in a very early stage – the planning stage. A plan is not a solution and, in my opinion, does not constitute justification for building even more NPPs and generating even more high level radioactive waste.

Well, friends an’ foes, I done rambled on longer than I thought I would. You might say my plan for a concise rejoinder didn’t quite come to the quick and easy fruition I planned for. I got more arguments to make against nuclear energy. Next time, I plan to post something about the relationship between nuclear power generation and nuclear weaponry.

JimBobby

Olaf's Great Debate: Nuclear Power, Yes or No?

Whooee! I was just over to a new site called The Great Canadian Debate where they got a interestin' idea. They get two bloggers to make their case on a topic and then the readers go on a discussion board to comment. Olaf from The Prairie Wrangler is behind the site and I say kudos to Olaf fer a dang good idea.

Today, the debate's on nuclear power. John of Dymaxion World is arguing against nukes. Frank Cybulski is on the pro-nuke side. Since I'm a lazyass and a recycler, I lifted my comment from there and I'm pasting it here.

Frank said: However, it can be assumed from both evidence and logical deduction that those single two incidents are the two blotches on an otherwise flawless safety record,

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are the two most well-known nuclear accidents. The industry's safety record is anything but flawless. A simple wikipedia search for nuclear accidents would tell even the most casual investigator that there have, in fact, been hundreds of accidents. To suggest that the nuclear industry's safety record is "flawless" is to insult the reader. After reading that genuinely offensive piece of disinformation, I very nearly quit reading Frank's argument.

If I had quit, though, I wouldn't have seen the next falsehood: The main example in favour of nuclear is that of France.

During heatwaves in 2003 and again in 2006, many of France's reactors had to be shut down due to a lack of cooling water. This was at the time when they needed the most energy for AC, refrigeration, fans, etc. In the 2003 heatwave, thousands of French citizens died from heat related problems.

Not enough cool water caused reactors to shut down in Michigan in 2006.

Groundwater in the French Champagne wine and dairy district is seven times more radioactive than EU standards permit. An entire industry, centuries old, faces collapse due to leaking radioactive contaminants.

Here in Canada, we have the Cameco situation. Cameco is a processor of raw uranium into nuclear fuel. Their Port Hope, Ontario plant has been leaking radioactive toxins into the ground and the plant has been shut down while they try to find the leak. They are being forced to drill holes through the sides of their various buildings and structures looking for the source. They've been looking for about three weeks, now.

The notion that nuclear energy production is carbon neutral is flat out wrong. Uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive of all mining operations. Transportation and refining of uranium are CO2 emitters. The construction of new nuclear plants takes years and is anything but carbon neutral.

Ontario's Environment Commissioner, Gordon Miller, says we should be looking at smaller, localized sources of power rather than large, centralized generators. The loss of power in transmitting across hundreds of miles amounts to more than 10%. Buyilding those transmission routes is another CO2 emitter and also takes valuable agricultural land out of use. McGuinty has chosen not to take the advice of his environment commissioner.

Frank goes on: Much is made of nuclear waste, but the miniscule amount of waste created by nuclear is insignificant when properly taken care of,

It's not the quantity. It's the toxicity. As far as "properly taken care of", nobody's figured out how to do that, yet. They've been looking for a way to properly take care of this waste for 60 years but, so far, temporary on-site storage is what we're doing. Even industry insiders say this is not a good permanent solution.

Nuclear waste must be guarded 24/7 by armed guards. Why? So terrorists or other criminals don't steal it to use as the dirt in a dirty bomb... or worse. Ontario Power Generation is training its own security force to takeover this responsibility from police.

No nuclear project in Canada has ever come in on time or on budget. The cost over-runs have been in the bilions. Reactor lifespans were said to be 40 years and when the existing Ontario reactors were built, the cost was prorated over 40 years. After 20 years, however, they began to fail. No reactor in Ontario has lasted more than 25 years. This has effectively doubled the cost to the taxpayer. Ontarians pay a charge on every monthly bill for "Ontario Hydro Debt Repayment." This money is entirely going to pay off bad investments in nuclear energy.

Shall I get into the cancer rates (200%-300% above average) in locales near nuclear plants? Shall I note all the times there were accidents and the public was left uninformed of the danger they were in (think way back to the Japan earthquake a couple weeks ago.) Shall I tell how the industry wines and dines local municipal government officials when a plant is proposed (Manitoba councillors flown out east for lobster dinners before a critical vote in which they approved a nuclear application)?

No nukes!

JimBobby

Depleted Uranium Weapons: Cancer and the Canadian Connection

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I sure ain't been doin' too much boogin' lately. I been doin' some twitterin', though. This mornin', I tweeted:

Soldier's cancer death linked to depleted uranium (DU): UK court - http://bit.ly/26hiuQ - Canadian DU connection - http://bit.ly/4EHlHo

Them there links got clicked 20 times in the first few minutes so I reckon there's some point in the Twitter. I been skeptical about Twitter but I thought I'd give it a chance after havin' a live-in-person chat with Stageleft a coupla weeks ago when I was up in Ottywa.

I ain't so sure about carryin' on conversations 140 characters at a time, so I figgered I'd expand (expound?) here on my boog where I can blather on as long as I want.

Anyways, here's a little more about how depleted uranium killed a Brit soldier.

The death of Stuart Dyson, a 39-year-old former soldier, from a rare from of cancer was caused by his exposure to depleted uranium used in military munitions, an inquest jury ruled.

The jury heard that Mr Dyson, a lance corporal in the Royal Pioneer Corps, cleaned tanks after the first Gulf War during a five-month deployment to the war zone.

His widow Elaine told the hearing that her husband's health had deteriorated after he left the Army in 1992 and that he was diagnosed with colon cancer, which spread to his liver and spleen, in 2007.

...

Giving evidence at the inquest, Professor Christopher Busby, an expert on the effects of uranium on health, said Mr Dyson's cancer was "more likely than not" caused by ingestion and inhalation of the substance during his service in the Gulf.

...

Professor Busby said he had visited Iraq in 2000 and had personally found particles of depleted uranium with dangerously high radiation levels near the wrecks of tanks destroyed during the 1991 war.
(Source)

Keep in mind that DU ammo is also being used in Afghanistan and now that the US is stepping up its involvement, even more DU is likely to be used.

Also keep in mind that coalition soldiers are far more likely to get medical treatment and diagnoses than Iraqi or Afghan civilians living in the zones where this radioactive hazard is being dispersed. Destroyed vehicles and former battle grounds are routinely scavenged by children and others looking to pick up a few pennies from salvageable parts.

There's a Canadian connection to DU.

While the U.S. appears to be on the verge of attacking Iran just for having a nuclear reactor, Washington and its allies continue to be the biggest nuclear proliferators in the world. Chief among these nuclear allies is Canada, which provides up to 40% of the world’s uranium, the largest amount. Eighty percent of Canadian uranium is exported, with 76% going to the U.S.

Canada has long been the main source of uranium for the U.S. nuclear arsenal, globally the largest and deadliest at 10,000 warheads and bombs. Washington has a first-strike nuclear policy and is actively preparing for nuclear war. It is also the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons--not once, but twice, on Japan in 1945.
...

Q: How is Canada violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Harding: Canada signed this treaty in 1970 and claimed that it would not be using uranium for weapons production. We now know that uranium out of Saskatchewan has been diverted through the depleted uranium (DU) system and has been fuelling the weapons stream. The public, I think, is largely unaware that we are still complicit directly in the weapons stream. It’s a tricky thing to track, but it goes something like this: After refining the uranium at Port Hope, we send it to the enriching system in the U.S. This system integrates both the military and the industrial uses of nuclear power. The U.S. Department of Energy and the Pentagon both take uranium from this system.

The uranium that is to be used in electrical generating nuclear reactors is concentrated to about 5%. This is uranium-235. About nine-tenths of the mass of what’s left after enrichment is called depleted uranium. This is then available to the Pentagon to use for weapons. And it’s not really depleted. That’s a misnomer. It’s still uranium. It’s primarily uranium-238, which can be put into Pentagon reactors to create plutonium. All the Pentagon needs to do is bombard the depleted uranium with neutrons and it can create a plutonium stream for weapons. Also, the depleted uranium is the packing on the H-Bomb. What makes the H-Bomb the mega-bomb is the amount of packing of the depleted uranium around the plutonium trigger.

Then the various weapons-producing companies such as Aerojet and ATK take this uranium and make the conventional depleted uranium weapons that are now contaminating probably the last four war zones in the Middle East and Southern Europe. Uranium out of Canada that’s got into the depleted uranium stream has already been dropped on Iraq during the U.S. invasion. So the weapons connection got obscured when the Non-Proliferation Treaty came, because technically the uranium is shipped to the U.S. for their reactors, but in fact the depleted uranium that’s left is then in the control of those countries. So it fundamentally abrogates the intentions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not technically.

Q: What are the implications of Canada’s continuing support for U.S. nuclear militarism?

Harding: It’s frightening stuff to think about. We’re really talking madness here in terms of the capacity. How few of these mega-bombs it would take to create a catastrophe that makes climate change look insignificant! The U.S. had 37,000 nuclear weapons during the 1980s, armed and ready to go. And we’re talking about using a very small number of those and having disastrous global implications.

When you dig below the surface, the complicity issue is always there. It was there in Vietnam, in terms of companies in Canada exporting armaments and even chemicals that were used in the napalm bombing. And in Canada we’re still doing that around depleted uranium. It just tends to be hidden behind the public statements of us being a non-nuclear power and having made the decision to focus on exporting medical isotopes and not nuclear weapons. This is an effective PR and propaganda system, but it just doesn’t happen to be true.

Q: What are the effects of depleted uranium on humans when it is used in conventional weapons, aside from immediate death and injury?

Harding: The number of cancers and death by cancer are significantly greater (than if the depleted uranium were not present), as are permanent sterility, birth deformations, and death from birth deformation. Depleted uranium affects the whole embryonic development, as well as increasing the risks of thyroid leukemia and other childhood cancers. They are seeing increases in a number of cancers in Basra and in other areas where they know there were high levels of depleted uranium weaponry used.
(Source)

There's plenty more in that interview.

I watched David Akin, Steve Paiken and a couple of nuclear proponents on TVO's The Agenda a couple nights ago. The topic was Canada's Nuclear Future. While they spent about two-thirds of the hour discussing Canada's role in the medical isotope business and the rest of the hour on nuclear energy issues, the topic of nuclear proliferation and Canada's role in supplying the raw material for nuclear weaponry was not mentioned, at all.

We cannot keep our heads buried in the sand. Canada is complicit in the proliferation of DU weaponry. Twenty or thirty years from now, some future Prime Minister will be issuing another meaningless apology and claiming we didn't know what was happening and sorry about all the cancer deaths. We do know.

JB

Americans Favourable to Nuclear Power

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I got myself on a mailin' list fer folks concerned about what's happenin' here in Nanticoke with the Nanticoke coal-fired generator. Ginty sez he's closin' it down an' there's a bigass push to build a nuclear power plant on or near the present location on the shores of Lake Erie.Today, I got an email pointin' me at the Wall Street Journal's forum where they got a yammerin' gabfest goin' on all about whether the Merkans oughta build more nuke plants. I jumped in an' since I'm a lazyass, I recycled most o' my comment into this here boog story.

They got a poll sez about 80% like the nuke idea. Most o' the comments is pro-nuke. Some of 'em, they IDed themselves as nuke industry workers.Some commenters was castin' doubt on the veracity of the online poll. Me, too. I reckon it's gettin' freeped just like that one The Beaver done where ol' Troodough come out as worstest Canajun ever.

A lotta Merkans unnerstand that oil's what got 'em in hot water over in EyeRack an' they're willin' to do whatever it takes to quit buyin' oil. Whatever it takes that don't put a crimp in their wasteful lifestyle, that is. They're buyin' into the ad campaign: clean, safe, affordable.

I seen a lot of WSJ commenters touting France as a good example of nuclear success. Someone claimed France was successfully reprocessing its waste but that was later shown not to be the case and the attempt was abandoned 10 years ago.

France and Europe, in general, have troubles when they get heat waves. At the very time more power is needed for AC, nuclear plants are forced to shut down due to a lack of water to cool them.

Heatwave shuts down nuclear power plants

Same thing's happened in Michigan.

Northeast of Chicago, American Electric Power Co. shut down one of two nuclear reactors in Bridgman, Michigan, yesterday after lake water, used to cool the facility, pushed readings in the containment building to 120 degrees, spokesman William Schalk said.

I also seen a lot of people talking about how safe nuclear is. Unfortunately, they may have the impression that there have been no nuclear accidents in North America since Three Mile Island. In fact, there have been numerous leaks and problems. Here's something from the NYT concerning radioactive leaks at several US reactor locations:

Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water

Here's a more complete list of worldwide nuclear accidents from wikipedia.

The market price of uranium has more than quadrupled in the past 6 years. It is expected to double again this year. New nuclear plants won't come online for at least 10 years. How much will the US pay for (mostly) foreign uranium? Is America jumping out the the oil frying pan into the nuclear fire? As a chief supplier of uranium, should Canada be worried with regard to mining and transportation safety issues?

Nuclear waste must be guarded by armed personnel 24/7 for the next millenium or two. Reprocessed nuclear waste is much more radioactive and can be the fuel of a very dirty bomb. Do we have so much faith in government as to think it will be here conscientiously guarding the ever-growing stockpiles 2 or 3 thousand years from now? Here in Canada, that guard duty is being shifted from public to private responsibility. Will the rent-a-cops be as diligent as Dudley Dooright?

JimBobby

Harper (once again) displays dangerous ignorance on nuclear file

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, Pryminister Harper was up on his hindlegs yammerin' about nuclear safety an' how Canada's gonna help save the world by sendin' 50% of our stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU, i.e. weapons-grade uranium) over to the USA.

In fairness, Harper did mention that he's not an expert with regard to nuclear technology. That, however, does not excuse the PM from making hugely inaccurate statements or from committing Canada to a course of action which could have disastrous consequences for future generations.

Harper was somewhat unclear about why we are only returning 50% of our stockpile but he was unequivocal (condescending, even) when he stated that 'Of course, we don't use highly enriched uranium for reactor fuel anymore.'

Wrong, again, Mr. Nuclear Physicist. The Chalk River NRU that makes medical isotopes does, indeed, use HEU as its fuel.

But, Harper may actually be partly correct. Thanks to years of mismanagement and the fact that it is about 10 years past its projected decommissioning date, the Chalk River reactor is out of service, so Harper may be technically correct that we aren't using HEU. The leaky reactor is undergoing a major repair job and is expected to limp back into service, possibly in June.

It is hard to believe that Harper is unaware that Canada has special dispensation under a side agreement to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that enables us to purchase weapons-grade uranium to fuel Chalk River. The issue made news in January when AECL ordered a fresh supply of HEU from the US.

While Harper's ignorance (or obfuscation) is a serious enough problem, the fact that Canada is returning used fuel to the country of origin is very significant, precedent setting... and foreboding. Under terms of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), all used nuclear fuel is to be repatriated to the country of origin. This is a big deal.

Canada is the world's second largest producer of Uranium (behind Australia) and the world's biggest exporter of uranium. Absurd as it sounds, the GNEP calls for used nuclear fuel that originally came from Canada to be returned to Canada. In case anyone is not aware, used nuclear fuel is 1000x more radioactive than unused fuel and must be kept in a secure location until it becomes harmless. That will take approximately 250,000 years. Quite a long term commitment with which our PM is saddling countless future generations of Canadians!

Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has only just begun looking for a suitable and willing host location for a Canadian nuclear waste repository. If the repository is ever built, it is designed to handle waste from the increasingly small number of Canadian nuclear power plants generating waste. How are we supposed to handle the thousands of tonnes of radioactive, toxic waste that could be returned to us under terms of the GNEP?

Canada: Energy Superpower or America's Nuclear Waste Dump?

JimBobby

Is Canadian Uranium Fueling Iran's Nuclear Program? Follow the links.

Whooee! Well, friends an’ foes, seems like a dog’s age since I done any boogin’. I been twitterin’ up a storm but I reckon I ain’t been motivated enough to typewrite more’n a hunnert an’ forty characters at a time. Until now, that is.

What got me chewin’ nails an’ fartin’ tacks this mornin’ was when I read about a spill on a shipload of Canadian uranium bound for China.

Right off, I gotta say I ain’t too keen on the cosy trade relations we got with the world’s worst human rights abuser. Sure, China’s a terrific supplier of poison dog food, lead-painted kid’s toys, prison labour produced shoes, suicide factory iPhones an’ a whole whack of other great stuff. But tradin’ our uranium for all them great consumer goodies sorta sticks in my craw.

Of course, China wouldn’t dream of using any Canadian uranium to fuel its nuclear weapons program. Right?

And, they’d never sell it on to a nuclear wannabe like Iran. Would they?

Wikileaks has let us know that Iran’s nuclear program is being aided by 30 countries. As of yet, the names of those 30 countries remains unknown. However, the leaked cables inform us that Iran’s chief problem in advancing its nuclear program is a lack of uranium. Hmmm… Canada’s got plenty. In fact, we’re the world’s second-largest supplier after Australia.

But Canada doesn’t sell nuclear technology to Iran, does it? Not directly, at least. We do sell nuclear materials and technology to a couple of Iran’s trade buddies, though: China and Kazakhstan.

And Kazakhstan, like China, would never sell to Iran. Would they?

Of course, all this worry about Canadian technology and uranium being used to further nuclear arms proliferation is just unfounded scaremongering. Right? We sold our technology to India, didn’t we? Did India use CANDU know-how to build an atomic bomb? Oh yeah, they did. But that didn’t have any serious consequences. It’s not like India’s arch enemy, Pakistan, felt pressured to become a nuclear power. Oh yeah, it did. But these countries are responsible world citizens and they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, didn't they? Oh yeah, they didn't.

That stuff’s all in the past. Who cares if India refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty? Canada decided they don’t pose any threat and signed a nuclear trade agreement with India just last summer.

Well, at least India's enemy, Pakistan, is so politically stable that their nuclear arsenal will never fall into the hands of extremists. Will it?

Secret, Schmecret -- AECL's Incompetence Further Revealed

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, everybody's talkin' 'bout dumbass Lisa Raitt leaving secret papers behind at CTV. Par for the CPC course. Their talent pool's pretty shallow, after all. While the fact that another of Harper's Ministers can't keep tabs on secret stuff is damning, what is more interesting is the stuff itself.

Underlying all of this security breach stuff is the fact that AECL is as incompetent as the minister in charge. The AECL refurbishment up at Bruce is now known to be more than 400 days behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Par for the nuclear course, I realize, but how can Ontario even consider AECL's unproven ACR-1000 design for its ridiculous $26.6 billion commitment to unneeded new nuclear builds?

That $26 Bn will undoubtedly turn into 10's of billions more and we all know who pays for these cost overruns.

Of course, Ontario could choose France's Areva to build the new reactors. They're 42 months behind schedule on their only contract to build the same new generation EPR reactor that is being considered for Ontario. Areva's Finnish project is running 60% over budget. On top of that, Finland was depending on Areva to be on time so that Finland would not face multi-million dollar penalties under Kyoto. In addition to the cost and time overruns, the Areva build also has safety shortcomings.

Governments need to face up to the fact that nuclear is the most expensive and least reliable option for meeting energy needs. We dole out lavish corporate welfare to these nuclear giants and, in turn, they use that money to lobby governments and mount public relations campaigns aimed at convincing decision makers and the public that they are selling a viable product.

The secrecy surrounding nuclear costs is only the tip of the iceberg. What are we not being told about lapses in safety and nuclear security? We are creating stockpiles of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel without any permanent storage solution. These stockpiles are guarded by paramilitary swat teams who must constantly upgrade their capabilities to stay ahead of terrorists and rogue states. We are saddling countless future generations with these security costs all so we can continue to waste energy like there's no tomorrow.

As far as the isotope crisis goes, watch for Harpoleon to pull a rabbit from the hat. The research reactor at McMaster Universty is to be upgraded with a paltry $22 million and part of that sum is intended isotope production.

In a statement, McMaster University said, "As Canada's only nuclear reactor outside of Chalk River capable of producing medical isotopes, the funding will be used to upgrade McMaster's physical infrastructure to expand Canada's isotope research and production capacity, to enhance research activities and train personnel for the nuclear industry and health care sectors."
(Source)

There's just one little problem. The Mac reactor, like the Chalk River dinosaur, is 50 years old. Throwing good money after bad seems to be the singled-minded goal of both the federal Conservatives and the Ontario Liberals.

What is somewhat surprising, though, is that when Minister Raitt was being grilled in QP the other day, she seemed to know nothing about the plans to upgrade the Mac reactor. More incompetence? Tony Clement failing to step up and defend his collegue? One hand unaware of what the other hand is doling out?

JB

Anti-Nuke Action for Nanticoke

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, down here in Norfolk and Haldimand Counties, Bruce Power is doin' its dangedest to build a new nuclear power plant. Ginty sez he's shuttin' down Nanticoke's filth-belchin' coal-fired plant by 2014. Bruce is ridin' in on a white horse an' promisin' a thousand jobs an' billions of dollars of investment in the local economy.

Both Bruce Power and the province have stated that they will only build nuclear plants in "willing host" communities. Both Haldimand and Norfolk County Councils have adopted resolutions declaring that we have a willing host community. Diane Finley's been actively working with Bruce Power, too.

There's just one big problem. Nobody has ever asked the local residents if they are in favour of a nuke plant here. Well, almost nobody. Bruce Power commissioned an Ipsos poll a couple years ago that asked if residents were in favour of exploring the possibility. As I recall, only about 1200-1500 people were polled and the poll was not an impartial poll commissioned by any branch of government but a poll commissioned by Bruce specifically to prove there is local support. There's something like 78,000 people on the voters' list in the two counties so a company-commissioned poll of 1500 doesn't cut much shit with me and it shouldn't cut much with our county gummints, neither.

I'm on a mailing list of a group that's been asking questions and publishing information about nuclear energy and the problems associated with it. The group is called Grand Erie Energy Quest. They been putting lotsa stuff on their website: www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca.

Well, things been movin' dang fast lately. Bruce Power's been makin' bigass announcements and putting full-page newspaper ads in every paper that serves the riding. They been sending out slick literature in the mail. They been makin' donations to local outfits like the Norfolk County Fair, Norfolk General Hospital and the Port Dover Medical Centre. They're describing the proposed project as a "clean energy hub." They say it's a combination of nuclear, wind, solar and hydrogen initiatives.

Greenwashing, sez I!

Well, the folks at Grand Erie Energy Quest (I'll call 'em GEEQs) have got themselves a petition and they're lookin' fer signatures. The issue goes beyond the boundaries of Haldimand and Norfolk. Hamilton and Niagara are in the Nanticoke air shed. Any accident at a new nuke plant in Nanticoke would affect millions of people in the Golden Horseshoe. I reckon anybody who wants can sign the GEEQ's petition.

Here's what the petition sez:

To: Norfolk County Council, Haldimand County Council, Legislature of Ontario, the Honourable Diane Finley and the Honourable Toby Barrett.

Without any formal public consultation, County Councils in both Haldimand and Norfolk have unanimously endorsed the first step in building two nuclear reactors.

The nuclear power industry has failed to address public concern over the issues of safety and security in the storage and handling of hazardous radioactive spent fuel.

Nuclear power is not emissions-free with its pollution intensive activities in uranium mining, transportation and refining.

No nuclear project has ever come in on budget or on time with the taxpayer and the utility customer paying for cost overruns that typically range in the billions of dollars.

We, the undersigned citizens, demand a complete moratorium on nuclear development until the issues of contamination, costs, security, and public consultation are adequately addressed.

You can download the petition from the GEEQ website. I've downloaded and printed a few copies and I don't reckon I'll have much trouble findin' signatures. Even though our local councils have told everyone we're a willing host, I been havin' a hard time findin' anybuddy who's in favour of this dumbass idea.

JimBobby

NUCLEAR POWER SPEEDING UP GLOBAL WARMING

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I'm on a email mailin' list where I get info about nuclear power an' alternative energy an' that sorta stuff. I got one today that was written by a good ol' boy name o' Ziggy Kleinau. I seen ol' Ziggy speak at a meetin' over in Jarvis a coupla few months back where they was talkin' about puttin' a nuke plant here in Nanticoke. Ziggy's been livin' off the grid fer somethin' like 12 years. I don't think he has a boog so I'm gonna share what he had to say to the email list.

NUCLEAR POWER SPEEDING UP GLOBAL WARMING.

Much has been made of the power contained in a single uranium fuel bundle used in Ontario’s CanDU reactors to produce electricity.

It is supposed to be able to generate as much electricity as 380 tonnes of coal or 1,800 barrels of oil (Canadian Nuclear Association website "Nuclear Facts").

Compared to the burning of fossil fuels to produce the steam to generate electric power the fuel bundle undergoes a fission process, splitting the uranium atoms to produce heat to fabricate the steam to drive turbines connected to the generators in a complicated process of electricity generation.

Matter-of-fact so much heat is produced by the fission-activated neutrons that – to keep the fuel from uncontrolled meltdown – there need to be huge amounts of cooling water drawn from Lakes Huron and Ontario.

The 6 operating Bruce Power reactors, by the way, are drawing close to 17 million litres of lake water A MINUTE( ! !) to keep the process from overheating (Golder Associates Ltd. Consultants).

What happens to this cooling water? Most of it is discharged back to the lake, but not in the same condition – it goes back out up to 12 degrees Celsius warmer! This so-called thermal plume has been heating up the Lakes for decades, 24/7, 365 days a year.

Very little ice has been forming on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay over successive, even colder, winters, resulting in lake water evaporation over the full 12 months instead of the normal 8 months of ice-free water. Without ice cover solar irradiation will also have the effect of additional warming of the open waters, while ice cover would have reflected the sun’s rays!

No wonder lake levels continue to drop, now at record low levels, affecting the economy of shipping companies and marinas, with waters getting warmer, resulting in increased evaporation and cloud forming.

That powerful fuel bundle – and there are 5760 of them in each reactor – can remain productive for just over 12 months, at which time it has to be removed BY REMOTE CONTROL because the fission has made it so highly radioactive that it would kill a person, standing as close as 3 metres, instantly.

When it is removed it still contains over 99% of potential energy,"but to extract it out costs a lot more than just to take it out and put it under water" (Jeremy Whitlock, past President, Canadian Nuclear Society, quoted on New Media Journalism website).

That ‘spent fuel’ bundle is so hot (37,000 watts – AECL 1994, NWMO Study ‘Choosing a Way Forward – 2005) that it, together with its compatriots, has to be kept in huge swimming pools, called irradiated fuel bays, for at least 10 years to bring the heat down to 5 watts, at which point it is supposed to be safe to store it above ground in heavy concrete containers.

So this impressive energy contained in the fuel bundle creating all the heat – how much electricity does it actually produce? Figures quoted generally pertain to primary power generation only.

This writer has toured the Bruce Power plant several times, also the huge Waste Management Facility adjacent to the reactors. There are a large number of auxiliary buildings absorbing lots of power, huge pumps sucking the cooling water from the Lake, stand-by power yards, fire fighting equipment – of course computers are running all the functions on site – all these together consume about one third of the electric power generated.

Together with transformer and transmission line losses and with the THERMAL POLLUTION HEAT LOSS, only about 33% of the heat released by that fuel bundle, while in the reactor, reaches the end user as electricity! ("Nuclear Heat", Issue Brief, Union of Concerned Scientists, August 2006).

Talking about efficiency – EFFICIENTLY HEATING UP OUR ENVIRONMENT WITH A HUGE AMOUNT OF WASTE HEAT!

IS NUCLEAR POWER REALLY THE SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING ??

Ziggy Kleinau, Coordinator for non-profit organization Citizens For Renewable Energy(CFRE) has taken part in Environmental Assessment and licensing hearings before the Atomic Energy Control Board(AECB) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission(CNSC) for over 12 years.

Yeow! Ol' Ziggy sed a mouthful. I reckon there's a few things Ginty and his bunch might wanna look into before they mortgage our grandchildrens' futures with their bigass push to spend $40 billion bucks on nuke power.

JimBobby

Think CANDUs are safer than anything else? Think again.

It is a popular Canadian myth that CANDUs are exponentially safer than other reactor designs. Is nationalistic pride trumping real evidence? Or, has the massively funded PR machine of the nuclear industry convinced an all-too-gullible public with its "Don't worry. Be happy" corporate bullshit? If CANDUs are so safe, why can't AECL turn a profit? One would think a super-safe nuclear reactor would be the obvious choice but even Ontario is leaning away from CANDU heavy water technology and toward other designs.

Greenpeace's Shawn-Patrick Stensil has an excellent Q&A on whether Canada is safe from a nuclear accident. Here's what he tells us about the CANDU.

Canada’s CANDU nuclear reactor is no safer than any other reactor design. 

Following the accident at the American Three Mile Island nuclear station in 1979, an all-party committee of the Ontario Legislature (the Select Committee on Hydro Affairs) investigated Ontario’s nuclear policies.  In its 1980 report to the legislature, the committee concluded that:  

“It is not right to say that a catastrophic accident (in a  CANDU  reactor) 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, for further habitation, large land areas... 

Accidents, mistakes and malfunctions do occur in [CANDU] nuclear plants: equipment fails; instrumentation gives improper readings; operators and maintainers make errors and fail to follow instructions; designs are inadequate; events that are considered `incredible' happen...no matter how careful we are, we must anticipate the unexpected.”

Additionally, the spent fuel storage pools that must circulate cool water over hot waste for 10-15 years are essentially the same at CANDU facilities as at every other facility. We have no deep geologic repository for spent fuel. All spent fuel in North America is being stored on site at nuclear power plants.

Spent fuel will remain hazardous for 1000's of years past the time when the plant responsible for creating it has ceased production. No production means no income... obviously. Yet today, we have SWAT teams guarding nuke plants to ensure bad guys don't get their hands on spent fuel. Who will be paying for the SWAT team and keeping the SWAT team armed with advanced weaponry 100 years from now? 200 years from now? 250,000 years from now? Remember, the most optimistic lifespan of a nuke plant is 60 years, including refurbishment.

BTW, all of Canada's plants are about the same age as Fukushima's 1971 reactors. They're failing. Pickering's CANDU leaked 73,000 liters of contaminated water into Lake Ontario this week. NB's Pt Lepreau refurbishment is years behind schedule and costing millions and millions more than estimated. Bruce Power's refurbishment is 18 months behind schedule and 100's of millions over budget.

Pro-nuke spinmeisters and vested interests are flailing desperately. It's their death throes. AECL was already on the auction block at a fire sale price with precious few (2) qualified bidders. Right now, I don't think we could give it away.

Isotope "Crisis" Profit Motivated: Canadian Medical Association Journal

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is blowing the lid off the December isotope "crisis." A new article in the association's Journal (CMAJ) describes how MDS Nordion and AECL duped Canadians and Parliament. They couldn't have done it alone, though. MDS had help. Big help. Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Quite a few bloggers have picked up on this story, including POGGE, The Galloping Beaver (TGB), Impolitical, Accidental Deliberations (Jurist) and Canadian Cynic. Like last week's revelation that the "crisis" was no crisis, at all, the CMAJ article is echoing and lending authority and credibility to what some Canadian bloggers have been saying for weeks.

There was no need for an isotope shortage. There was no need to restart NRU. There was no need for Harper to mislead Parliament and all Canadians about the cause of the shortage. There was no need for Harper to fire the nuclear regulator.

By way of patting myself on the back and telling my thousands an' thousands of readers how prescient ol' JimBobby was, I'm gonna quote myself. Here's what I said back on December 18th:

MDS is the profitable private company that distributes AECL's isotopes. On Nov 30, MDS issued a press release advising investors that the company was facing a supply problem and shortages may develop. Such reporting is required for publicly traded companies when a known issue may affect stock price.
...

Lives were put at risk. A full-blown crisis was manufactured and Harper, et al, saw no other option than to overrule CNSC and restart NRU. There were other options but they were apparently unknown to parliament.

If MDS had outsourced, no crisis would have developed. If MDS had outsourced, MDS's stock price would be negatively affected. Outsourcing from suppliers who are working overtime to meet demand is expensive. MDS's customers are mainly in North America. Flying isotopes from Holland or South Africa is expensive. Transportation costs would have would cut further into MDS's profits.

MDS played its cards skillfully. They created a shortage. They failed to notify all the affected parties. They failed to procure available alternative isotopes. They put thousands of lives at risk. They got Parliament to restore their source of profitable isotopes.
(Source: JimBobby, Dec. 18, 2007)

Here's some of what the CMAJ article says:

Although the health care implications of the Chalk River kerfuffle are serious, the many headlines declaring a world-wide isotope shortage may have been premature, if not errant. Countries like Canada, the United States and Japan were facing shortages that would have resulted in thousands of cancelled diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, but it was business as usual for European nuclear medicine practitioners.

Europe’s 2 large-scale isotope suppliers — the Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group in the Netherlands and the Institut National des Radioéléments in Belgium — coordinate their production schedules to ensure 1 reactor is always running. They also have open communication with Nuclear Technology Products in South Africa. Some in the international nuclear medicine community claim that foreign producers could have buoyed the North American supply chain, had Canada been a better global partner.

“The 1 problem we have is that we never get information from the Canadians,” says Kevin Charlton, commercial manager for business development and sales with the Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group.

Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine President Dr. Jean-Luc Urbain claims foreign isotope producers were not capable of picking up the slack. But others, like University of Texas public affairs professor Alan J. Kuperman, argue MDS Nordion has no interest in international contingency planning.

“They see themselves as the big dog. They are not going to share information with the small ones nipping at their heels.” “There is all sorts of surplus capacity,” says Kuperman. “Nordion and AECL [Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.] obviously knew there was an option of going to other suppliers … Instead, they went to the public and the Canadian government. That was misleading and, one could argue, socially irresponsible.”
(Source: CMAJ [pdf], emphasis mine, JB)

Socially irresponsible. They could have coordinated efforts with alternative suppliers. They could have prevented the shortage from developing and they did not.

AECL and MDS Nordion, with the help of Prime Minister Harper, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn and Health Minister Tony Clement, pulled the wool over the eyes of the public and the eyes of 100% of Canadian MP's.

Why was the shortage manufactured? Profit, pure and simple.

As I said seven weeks ago, MDS's bottom line was at risk if they had to outsource isotope production. They played a dangerous game that put 1000's of medical tests on hold and could have cost lives.

MDS's point man was Stephen Harper. Harper's bluster, exaggerations, crisis mentality and partisan bullying was essential to the scam. Without Harper's representation in the House, MDS would have had to own up to its part in creating a life-threatening shortage for the sake of profit.

Harper did his job. The job he did was not on behalf of Canadians or even on behalf of all cancer patients expecting diagnostic tests. The job that Harper did was to ensure that MDS's cheap supply of medical isotopes was restored. Harper's job was to ensure MDS's profits did not suffer. The suffering of cancer patients? That takes a backseat to the profit-driven medical industry.

Underlying all this, is the Harper government's unabashed desire to sell off AECL. Other influential factors include the fact that the Maple 1 & Maple 2 reactors are "duds." MDS and AECL have managed to jointly get the Maples 8 years behind schedule and over $400 million over budget. That's not exactly shocking in the nuclear industry where massive cost overruns and multi-year delays are pretty much the norm. What is shocking, however, is the idea that these replacements may never go into service.

In 2007, officials at the federal agency predicted it would cost the public purse another $130 million to get the new reactors in service.

But senior government sources say the figure is closer to another $400 million, bringing the total cost to around $900 million -- an overrun of about 650% from the original contract price.

"There is no way those (reactors) make any economic sense for commercial isotope production," says one federal official close to the situation.

"Taxpayers would be subsidizing them forever."

Sources also warn that even investing $400 million more would not guarantee the reactors would actually work.

The biggest technical problem, in simple terms, causes the nuclear reaction to speed up as the reactor speeds up, creating a cycle of ever increasing power that may not have a happy ending.

Atomic Energy officials argue that the problem is only slight, and can be rectified.

But one federal official points out the world has already seen the phenomenon in action once, albeit on a far larger scale than anything that could occur at Chalk River.

"It was called Chernobyl."
(Source: Greg Weston, Toronto Sun, Feb 1, 2008)

Weston devotes most of his article to blaming 13 years of Liberal mismanagement for AECL's problems. I won't argue with that. Weston focuses on the problems with the Maples fails to mention anything about the manufactured and avoidable nature of the December shortage. He does reveal some interesting facts concerning MDS's profitability.

MDS would own the reactors, and Atomic Energy would get a share of the proceeds from the sale of medical isotopes across Canada and around the world.

But by 2005, costs had spiralled out of control, and still the Maple reactors were plagued with technical and other problems.

In 2006, after a lengthy legal fight with Atomic Energy, MDS Nordion did something that should have sounded alarm bells about the reactors.

The company simply wrote off the staggering $345 million it had invested in the Maple reactors, and handed Atomic Energy the keys -- and all future financial responsibility for the project.

In return, MDS got a guaranteed 40-year supply of isotopes.

MDS Nordion's share price went up on the announcement.
(Source: Greg Weston, Toronto Sun, Feb 1, 2008)

And as we're all finally learning, everything about the AECL/MDS relationship is about profit: share prices. Note that after a legal battle, AECL guaranteed a 40 year supply of isotopes. Just how are we (yes, we taxpayers own AECL) supposed to honour that legally binding agreement? Will we be running NRU when it's 90 years old?

Here's the question Canadians need to ask:

Were Harper, Lunn and Clement dupes? Or were they duplicitous?

I'm going for the latter.

Harper, Lunn, Clement and AECL/MDS conspired to trick the public and Parliament. For profit. Like the guy said in the CMAJ article, the engineered crisis was misleading and socially irresponsible. I'd call that the antithesis of public service. Harper et al scammed Parliament and they scammed all Canadians. They must be called to account.

Change the climate in Parliament.

JimBobby

UPDATE: MDS Nordion is paying attention to what the blogs are saying.

Soldiers... with guns... in our streets - Forces Training for Domestic Deployment

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I'm a little slow on the uptake in catchin' this story. I come across it while lookin' fer news about nuclear power plants in Canada.

Military readies reservists for threats to 'domestic front'

Adrian Humphreys, National Post
Published: Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Master Cpl. Brian Walsh/DNDReserve units across Canada
are being trained in securing perimeters in case of an emergency.

The Canadian military has embarked on a wide-ranging plan to turn its reserve soldiers into focused units trained and equipped to respond to a nightmarish array of domestic threats, including terrorist "dirty bomb" attacks, biological agent containment, Arctic catastrophes and natural disasters.

The creation of seven units within each region of the country -- including unusual all-terrain vehicle (ATV) squadrons and perimeter security teams to cordon areas of potential devastation -- prepares reserve soldiers for operations on the "domestic front" while freeing regular force soldiers to concentrate on foreign battlefields.

(More...)

What's that got to do with nuclear power plants?

"We all know the threat from dirty bombs, chemical contaminants. This is certainly one of the more dangerous situations that can arise," said Brig.-Gen. Collin.

"You can certainly get it from a terrorist act. You can also get it from a man-made disaster. You can get nuclear contamination from a nuclear power plant -- Three Mile Island, Chernobyl.

"We are training to establish a perimeter. Do I see a scenario when we might be obliged to keep people in? Probably. You need to be trained to be able to make sure that you don't become a casualty in the process of doing that security."

(Emphasis mine, JB)

The proponents of nuclear energy routinely dismiss concerns about security and the possibility of terrorist attacks and the problem of dirty bomb fuel being stored at power plants. The Canadian army is not so dismissive and is preparing for just such possibilities.

One of the more disturbing things in General Collin's quote is when he says that soldiers guarding a perimeter could be deployed to keep people inside the perimeter. If people happen to be in the 30KM radius of a nuclear accident, toxic leak or chemical warfare attack, I would hope the military would be deployed to get them out -- not to keep them in.

This is another example of the public picking up the tab for nuclear power plant security. How many military units will be needed to guard against contamination from windmills, solar panels and distributed hydro power?

JimBobby

Canada Signs Bush Nuke Plan, Hidden Agenda Glowing in the Dark

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I can hardly keep from poundin' my fingers through the keyboard. I'm pissed off. Dang pissed off. This morning, I learned that our country has signed on to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). If you never heard of it, I ain't surprised. Whenever anybody's asked about it, the HarpoonTossers clammed up. Just this September at the APEC Summint, they was asked and they wouldn't even say if they were sending a representative to a Vienna GNEP meeting.

Now, they've announced that we're part of Bush's nuclear energy policy. They say it's a done deal.

There was no parliamentary debate. There was no public consultation. There was no public information campaign.

Major international energy agreements that encompass all aspects of a dangerous and controversial technology cannot appear out of thin air. Canada's involvement is now a fact. Canada's involvement up til now has been shrouded in secrecy.

So, yer askin', what's wrong with GNEP?

Since the 1970's, Canada has had a moritorium on the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. This is because reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates an unacceptable security risk. The reprocessed fuel can be fashioned into a nuclear weapon. I ain't talkin' about just a dirty bomb. I'm talkin' about an A-bomb. GNEP fosters reprocessing.

Canada is the world's largest producer of uranium. GNEP requires uranium producers to repatriate spent nuclear fuel. Canada will become the world's largest nuclear waste dump.

GNEP may be the first step towards Canada dismantling AECL, the crown corporation responsible for the development and sale of CANDU reactors. Avro Arrow, anyone?

A hat tip to Politics'n'Poetry and Accidental Deliberations.

Chewin' nails an' fartin' tacks,

JimBobby

Linda Keen Gets Major International Award, Nobody Notices

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, we all remember Linda Keen. She was the scapegoat for AECL-MDS Nordion-MNR-GoC negligence and foul-ups. She was ignominiously fired as president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission by Gary Lunn after her inconvenient whistleblowing precipitated last December's so-called isotope crisis. Keen remains a CNSC member and employee.

Well, our gal Linda has been presented with a top award from a top international professional association. Here's the announcement from the CNSC website.

Linda J. Keen Receives 2008 Women in Nuclear (WiN) Global Award

On May 28th, 2008, Linda J. Keen, was presented with the 2008 Women in Nuclear (WiN) Global Award in Marseilles, France. She received special recognition for excellence in communications, education, leadership and mentoring in the nuclear sector. Ms. Keen is currently a permanent full-time Member of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and was formerly President and Chief Executive Officer. The CNSC is proud to acknowledge Ms. Keen as the first Canadian to receive this award.

Wowee! Sounds impressive. Run the maple leaf up the flagpole, stand and sing O Canada. Our home and native land oughta be proud. But, gee, this was almost a month ago and even avid nuke news watchers like ol' JB didn't see anything about it in the MSM or the blogs.

I only learned of this award a couple days ago through a nuclear issues email list subscription. If you go to the CNSC's home page, there's nothing there to indicate that one of their employees and their immediate past-president has been honoured with a prestigious international award. Digging a little deeper, I tried to find the news item on the CNSC's News page. Nothing there, either, except a link to More News Releases. I was sure I'd dug deep enough into the CNSC site that finally, I'd find the News story that I quoted above. Hmmm... I found a page purporting to show all 2008 news releases. But, dang it, the story about Keen's dismissal was there but not a peep about Keen receiving this big award.

Be proud, Canajuns. Be proud of Linda Keen.

Just in case the CNSC decides to make the announcement completely unavailable, I've grabbed a screenshot.
JimBobby

Isotope Crisis: Right Hand Hanging Left Hand Out to Dry

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, seems like these here Conservative ministers is their own worst enemies. Instead of throwin' a lifeline to their flounderin' colleagues, they sit on their hands and watch 'em splash an' drown. Instead of pullin' out the rabbit they got in their hat, they play dumb... or, are they actually just as uninformed as they let on?

While Ministers Raitt and Aglukkaq continue to demonstrate their incompetence, real progress is being made in the field of isotope production. While Prime Minister Harper tells us Canada is throwing in the towel on future isotope manufacture and supply, Canadian research and technology is moving forward achieving just what Harper says is not feasible.

One wonders why Raitt, Aglukkaq and Harper seem unable to even attempt to fend off opposition questions with real answers that would put their government in a much better light. Although it seems improbable, it appears that none of the politicians are up to speed on what is happening under their very noses.

Back in November 2008, TRIUMF : Canada's National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics, the University of British Columbia and Advanced Applied Physics Solutions, Inc. (AAPS) released a report “proposing a uniquely Canadian method for producing select medical isotopes which avoids using weapons-grade uranium and nuclear reactors.”

More recently, MDS Nordion, the same company that purchases and distributes all of the Chalk River isotopes, entered into a commercial agreement with TRIUMF “to study the feasibility of producing a viable and reliable supply of photo-fission-produced molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) used globally for diagnostic medical imaging.”

While Harper and his crew of liquidators are intent on selling the farm at bargain basement prices and abandoning Canada’s formerly respected role in the field of nuclear medicine, Canadian researchers and business interests are working outside the AECL framework to deliver much-needed isotopes using a safer, cheaper technology. While Harper and his nuclear grease monkeys are applying duct tape and Bondo to Chalk River’s 52 year old clunker, forward thinking scientists are developing an alternative source of Molybdenum-99.

While Harper and his inexperienced cabinet ministers sputter about securing isotopes from international sources, UBC, TRIUMF and MDS Nordion are forging ahead on a highly promising plan that, incredibly, was the subject of an announcement by Ministers Raitt and Aglukkaq less than two weeks ago.

Federal Gov't Takes Forward Steps on Medical Isotopes

29 May 2009

Yesterday, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt and Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq announced the Government's plan to establish an Expert Review Panel for Long-Term Isotope Supply Solutions. TRIUMF, Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics, supports these steps and looks forward to contributing to the process.

Why, one wonders, did neither Raitt nor Aglukkaq point to this development when they faced tough questioning in the House? Is it possible that the announcement, though seemingly made jointly by their own offices, was unknown to the ministers?

Now, let’s move along to part two of the ministers not knowing what’s happening under their noses. This time, we have former Health Minister and current Industry Minister Tony Clement remaining silent in the House while his hapless colleagues Raitt and Aglukkaq squirm under questioning about what they are doing to ease the shortage of isotopes.

Odd, since it was just about a week earlier, on June 1, that Clement announced $22 million in new funding to upgrade McMaster University’s research reactor, part of which was designated “to expand Canada's isotope research and production capacity.” Although $22 million is a piddly amount by nuclear standards, Clement could have come to the aid of his fellow cabinet members with at least one concrete example of what Canada is doing to increase domestic isotope production. Additionally, unlike Chalk River’s NRU, the Mac reactor is currently operational and presumably could be producing some of the needed isotopes while the repairs to the NRU are being carried out.

When PM Harper told us yesterday that Canada is getting out of the isotope business, did he not know that his industry minister, just 10 short days ago, had doled out $22 million to expand Canada's isotope production capacity.

Don't these ministers talk to one another? Don't they even read their own press releases?

JimBobby

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.

JimBobby

1000's of Lives at Risk? Tell me another one, Gary.

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, another day, another confirmation of lies and exaggerations by the HarpoonTossers. Along with the gal I adore, Earth Mother Lizzie May, a few of us bloggers been sayin' the so-called isotope crisis weren't really a crisis, at all. Even if it were a crisis, it was entirely manufactured and avoidable.

Here's another piece of evidence to add to the stinkin' heap.

Doubt cast on assertion that thousands of lives at risk in Chalk River fiasco

16 hours ago

OTTAWA - Doubt was cast Tuesday on the Harper government's assertion that thousands of lives could have been lost if it hadn't forced resumption of isotope production at the Chalk River nuclear reactor.

Dr. Karen Gulenchyn, a nuclear medicine expert who helped advise federal Health Minister Tony Clement during the isotope shortage last December, said it's "very difficult" to speculate on what might have happened to patients whose diagnostic tests were delayed due to the shortage.

"It's a very difficult question to answer," she told the Commons natural resources committee.

Pushed by committee members to elaborate, Gulenchyn finally added: "Could people have died? Yeah, they could have under certain circumstances."

Her cautious appraisal of the situation was in contrast to the bold assertions by Clement and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn. They have raised the spectre of massive loss of life to justify the government's decision last December to force the reopening of the reactor over the objections of Canada's nuclear safety regulator.

Clement has spoken of the "huge human health impacts" of allowing the reactor, which produces about half the world's supply of medical isotopes, to remain shut down.

And Lunn has justified the subsequent firing of Linda Keen from her post as president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission by arguing that she was "willing to put the lives of thousands of Canadians in jeopardy."

Isotopes are used primarily in diagnostic tests for cancer and heart disease.

If Gulenchyn was cautious, Dr. Thomas Perry from the University of British Columbia, was downright skeptical of the government's claims of a health care emergency.

Although not a nuclear medicine expert himself, Perry said he's spoken to many colleagues in his province who've told him the isotope crisis was "much ado about nothing." The former NDP provincial politician said he couldn't think of one diagnostic test that couldn't have been conducted in an alternate way without isotopes.

Gulenchyn said the group of experts who advised Clement during the crisis found that the impact of the Chalk River closure varied greatly across the country. British Columbia was the least affected while eastern Canada and small and remote communities, with the least access to alternative diagnostic equipment, were hardest hit.

Among patients awaiting diagnostic tests, she said the group found delay could result in serious harm for about 10 per cent and in delayed treatment and unnecessary pain for another 50 per cent. About 40 per cent of cases could be safely deferred.

Had the reactor not come back on line on Dec. 16, Gulenchyn said "we believe unmanageable shortages would have occurred within a week." She conceded that European reactors could likely have taken up the slack, had they been given enough advance notice to ramp up their operations, but that was not the case in December.
(Source - there's more and it's worth readin')

So, an adviser to Clement who is a nuclear medicine expert says, "European reactors could likely have taken up the slack, had they been given enough advance notice to ramp up their operations, but that was not the case in December." It was not the case in November, either. MDS Nordion was well aware that the supplies from Chalk River would be disrupted. They put out press releases in November to that effect.

MDS Nordion also claimed that hey were working with their European competitors to obtain alternate supplies. So far, we've seen or heard zero evidence to back up that assertion.

I gotta go an' take ol' Spot fer his mornin' exercise now. I'll post more on this later.

JB