Elizabeth May's Nomination: Challenges and Opportunities

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, the gal I adore, Earth Mother Lizzie May, got the nomination to run out on Vancouver Island in the Saanich Gulf Islands riding. Green Party blogger Camille Labchuk wrote up a blog on it and there's some comment action over there. Commenter Mark Francis brought up a couplafew points regardin' Ignatieff's less-than-stellar environmental stance vis-a-vis the tar sands, incumbent Gary Lunn's vulnerability and the need for getting "boots on the ground." Here's my response recycled:

Mark makes some good points. Every candidate will have some baggage. For the Libs, Ignatieff’s environmental intransigence will be serious baggage for small-g green voters. He’s on record supporting nukes, too. His militaristic support for Bush’s Iraq invasion/fiasco doesn’t really speak well for his international savvy, either, and won’t play well with the stereotypical west coast flower children. Hetherington will be saddled heavily with her un-green leader.

Lunn is vulnerable on Chalk River. As Minister of Natural Resources, he was the guy who fired Linda Keen so ignominiously in the middle of the night. He was responsible for restarting the limping reactor that is now giving Canada an international black eye in the medical isotope department. So hapless was Lunn that he was relieved of that portfolio and it was handed off to the even more hapless Lisa Raitt.

Elizabeth May’s biggest piece of baggage seems to be the parachute label. If she can wrap herself in SGI issues and make herself visible enough between now and whenever the Cons get too unpalatable for Layton, she may be able to shake that off. Her environmental credentials and those of the GPC are impeccable. For small-g green voters, she should be able to capitalize on the Liberal leader’s poor environmental stance.

The Herzog flair-up will be seen by most as a sour grapes thing; internal, riding-level party power politics: no worse, better or different than what happens with every party. Elections Canada will not find anything amiss with the riding funding plan and despite some valid concerns regarding top-down party management, Herzog’s complaints will not continue to play a significant part in an election campaign.

Have the NDP nominated anyone? BC voters have the advantage of having had a provincial NDP government by which to judge the NDP’s commitment to the environment. Sure, federal NDP does not equal provincial NDP… except when the NDP wants it to.

I’m a longtime GPC member and EDA exec. I wasn’t too keen on the SGI choice but now that it is a done deal, I’ll be putting my support behind Elizabeth. The decision to run her wherever she is most electable wasn’t a top down decision but was endorsed by the rank and file. My biggest concern centres around the availability of SGI foot soldiers. When Elizabeth ran in London, the foot soldiers flocked in from Toronto and elsewhere in densely populated southern Ontario to knock on doors. I fear that sort of feet-on-the-ground support will be much more difficult to muster in SGI where the doors are further apart and the population nearby is sparser.

JimBobby

Electoral Reform in My Lifetime? I Doubt It.

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I was just over to POGGE's fine boog an' left me a bigass comment on the troublems with our dumbass electoral system. One o' the commenters by the name o' Greg said he figgered he only had 3 parties to choose from an' that got my Green Party hackles raised up so I lit in with a ramblin' diatribe. Here it is:

Greg said: Finally, I could withhold my vote...

There is another party that runs in all ridings and has remained steadfastly in favour of PR. While the Greens have not elected anyone, GPC support has been steadily growing and the unfairness of FPTP is driven home to more and more voters after each election.

NDP and GPC voters tend to have a better grasp on the problems with the current system simply because we are the ones most victimized by it. The two leading parties are the main beneficiaries of the unfair FPTP system and find it very easy -- and self-serving -- to deny that any problem exists.

I worked alongside my GPC candidate in the 2008 election. She was a big Fair Vote Canada campaigner and worked tirelessly in the Ontario referendum. Whenever she would bring up electoral reform, it would end up working against her. After a few such debacles, it was decided to keep the issue low key. It just didn't resonate or else it was deemed too complicated -- or a dead duck done deal due to the resounding defeat in the referendum.

Attempting to get votes, knowing full well that your party doesn't stand a chance in FPTP, can be frustrating. People will ask, "Why bother?" One of the best reasons has to be the mere fact that once a person sees his or her vote declared essentially meaningless due to FPTP, they will be more receptive and more vocal about the inherent unfairness of the current system.

When enough people start asking why a party that gets 8% or 9% of the popular votes gets 0% representation, we might stand a chance of changing the system. And, it's not just the disenfranchised GPC and NDP voters who can see the discrepancy.

Obviously, the main beneficiaries will be loathe to change a system in which they are the main beneficiaries. I'm not sure we can change that. A Liberal or Con MP who votes for a system that will deprive his party of seats will quickly be dropped from the party.

In the meantime, all we can do is vote our conscience and do our best to inform the public that we have a patently unfair system. I'm 60 YO and have lost all hope that the system will change within my lifetime. That won't stop me from pushing for change. Hey... I'm still pushing for world peace, too.

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

No Nukes in Nanticoke - Yippee!!

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, OL' JB ain't been doin' too much boogin' lately on accounta I been busy fightin' a bigass nuclear war down here in Nanticoke. Now, I ain't gonna say we won the war but I'm sayin' the other guys lost. Leastwise, they turned tail an' run away. Good riddance, sez I.

Bruce Power abandoned its proposal to build a new nuke plant in Nanticoke. -- Public opposition was mounting. -- The estimated price tag went from $7 billion last November to $10-$15 this May. -- Nuke investors have been walking away from proposals all over the place.

According to our MPP, 76% of folks down this way were opposed to the plant. The Ontario government said it wasn't going to buy any electricity from the dumbasses. Bruce was probbly hoping to sell the power to the Merkans. If that happened, the Merkans'd get the power; the fatcats'd get the profits; and Nanticoke'd get to store tonnes of deadly radioactive waste for a few hundred thousand years.

Over in Port Dover, they're dancin' in the streets an' gatherin' up some driftwood for a bigass bonfire on the beach.(My ol' Grannie was a Dover girl, born in 1894. I reckon she and/or some of her sisters might be in this here pitcher. I'll ask my Mum if she recognizes anyone.)

In Port Dover, they don't mince words:

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

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

Seal Hunt Not Worth the Fight - Time to Move On

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I'm gonna wade into the seal hunt issue. Over to StageLeft, there's a comments section gabfest goin' on an' I left me a bigass comment. I'm recycling that comment here.

How about we look at the economics of the hunt?

Back in 2007, the landed value of the seal hunt was only a paltry $12 million. 2008 was about half of that. In 2007, the federal government paid about $3.4 million to rescue sealers from the ice. I don’t know how much we spent in 2008. Taxpayers also pay for aircraft used to locate seals and commercial sealers are led to the seals by Coast Guard icebreakers. Canadian tax dollars support the hunt and the massive PR campaign that was mounted to counter EU opposition.

Despite all the money we spent, the EU still voted for a ban. Now, we’re going to throw good money after bad by mounting a legal challenge at the WTO. At least the lawyers are still making money.

When the banks need money, we bail them out with billions of public dollars. When the dumbass, gas-guzzlin’ auto industry needs money, we bail them out with billions more. When the dirty tar sands need money, we give them billions in tax cuts and bogus R&D grants to fantasyland carbon capture schemes. When tobacco farmers can’t make it, we cough up $288 million in buyout money.

We sell a lot of other stuff to EU customers and our protestation over the seal hunt could well cause a larger boycott of Canadian products of all types. When the US banned seal imports, we didn’t mount a legal challenge, even though the US was formerly the biggest customer. We understood the possible trade ramifications. We’d better wake up and understand what a blanket European boycott of Canadian products could mean.

The seal hunt may be unjustly portrayed as inherently cruel. However, we fought the PR battle on that score and, like it or not, we lost. Public opinion is against the hunt. Also, contrary to what Doug Newton said, the EU Parliament is an elected body.

Even without the EU ban, the market for pelts was down so much in recent years that many sealers didn’t bother going out and risking their necks this past year. I suggest that the EU ban is less a case of an authoritarian imposition than it is a case of the EU Parliament reflecting the wishes of EU citizens. They spoke with their pocketbooks already.

If we simply didn’t fight the ban and gave up the logistical and search & rescue support we lavish on this industry, we’d have millions to invest into alternatives or to simply dole out to the out of work sealers. Instead, we’re planning to spend good dollars fighting a fight we cannot possibly win.

I have no opposition on humanitarian grounds and I understand and appreciate the argument that seals compete with humans for fish. Nevertheless, the public relations war is over and we lost. Time to move on.

BTW, I killed 5 mice in the past 36 hours. There is no market for mouse pelts or mouse meat so I tossed them in the trash. If the seals are pests to the fishing industry, I have no problem with the fishing industry financing a cull. We’ve culled deer down here on Long Point when they became too populous.

Something that I wonder about, though… Back when Cabot sailed into the Grand Banks, the cod were so plentiful they scooped them up with buckets. There was no commercial seal hunt at that time. Who is to blame for cod stock depletion? Seals or human over-fishing?

I think we can develop a Canadian market for Inuit seal products. I think the commercial sealers are already accustomed to taking handouts and giving them each a couple thousand bucks would be much more cost-effective than flogging the dead horse at the WTO.

JB

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

Three Mile Island - People Died

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, this is the 30 year anniversary of North America's worst nuclear accident: Three Mile Island. True to form for nuke incidents, we've been kept in the dark concerning the actual scope of the disaster.

Robert, over at Blast Furnace Blog, had a piece on TMI and I left a bigass comment. I'm recycling that comment here.

We're only just learning about the cover-ups at TMI.

People died.

Also:
In 1983, Metropolitan Edison was busted for falsifying documents related to the accident and reactor safety. They pled guilty to six, and no contest to one, of the 11-count indictment.

(The) thousands of people who received the same dose as an x-ray included pregnant women and children under the age of five. Pregnant women, fetuses and young children are more easily damaged by small doses of radiation. Acceptable doses are based on "reference man" -- a 20-30 YO Caucasian male.

Until we have a permanent, safe, passively secure site for storing spent fuel, we sure as hell shouldn't be adding to the stockpile.

While (Robert's) assertion that CANDUs are safer than other types is arguable, AECL has abandoned the old heavy water CANDU and is promoting the ACR 1000, a EPR (Generation 3) type reactor. All 3 of the reactor designs shortlisted for Ontario are EPR types.

In the past couple weeks, the Oxford Research Group, UK think tank, released a study for the Institute for Public Policy Research. They warn that these third generation (EPR) reactors, like the three models on OPG's shortlist for Ontario and Bruce Power's shortlist for Nanticoke, pose proliferation risks that could lead to “nuclear anarchy.” The report notes that the new type of reactor produces high grade plutonium as a by-product. Plutonium is used to make the most efficient nuclear weapons.

It's been nearly 60 years since the "Atoms for Peace" campaign started promoting nuclear electricity generation. Back then, the scientists were heady from successes like the Manhattan Project. They saw the problem of spent fuels but were understandably confident the problem would be solved quickly. After all , the world's best minds were working on a solution. After 60 years, the best they came up with was Yucca Mountain and that has just been kiboshed by Obama after 20 years work and $11 Billion thrown down the drain.

Reprocessing doesn't work either. A reprocessing plant in West Valley, NY, just across Lake Erie must be decommissioned at taxpayer expense. The operator went broke. NY State taxpayers are looking at a $27 billion estimate to decontaminate the site. Remember though, nuke projects typically come in at least 50% over budget.

Why on earth would any sensible person even consider a technology that leaves behind waste that must be guarded by paramilitary swat teams for 250,000 years?

Here's picture from Bruce Power bragging about their security team. The stuff they're guarding will need to be guarded for more than 100,000 years. Who's going to be responsible for securing the waste we're creating today? What right do we have to burden future generations and civilizations with the toxic legacy of our wasteful lifestyles?

JimBobby

Earth Hour: A Curmudgeon's View

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I'm doin' some recyclin' an' I reckon it's OK on accounta it's all about Earth Hour. My boogin' buddy Balbulican has a post on how the anti-Earthers can carry their stoopidity to the next level. I'm recyclin' my comment from StageLeft and usin' it fer my boog story. I ain't sure how many KwH I'm savin'.

I’m a bigass treehugger an’ ol’ Mother Earth is who I fight for every day but I’m a little cynical about Earth Hour. Oh, I’ll participate. It’ll be easy. Ma and I always walk the dogs fer about an hour a night. Usually, we leave the back porch light on but on Saturday, I’ll pull the main breaker down in the basement before we go out and reset all the clocks when we come back.

Here in small town Ontariariario, we get useta power outages — even when yer livin’ in the shadow of the Nanticoke Generating Station. I hafta reset the clocks about 6x a year anyways. One more time ain’t gonna hurt much, sez I.

Reason I’m a bit cynical on Earth Hour is I get the impression some folks think if they turn off their lights fer an hour a year, they’re actually making some difference vis-a-vis savin’ the planet. I reckon symbolism is a little beyond some folks.

I also am a little concerned with the message that conservation involves freezing in the dark. There are far more effective and less inconvenient ways to use less energy than to turn off everything for an hour a year and then carry on with the usual wasteful practices the rest of the time.

Earth Hour can be fun and informative and I’m maybe a curmudgeon but I’ll do my bit on Saturday night. And, man-o-man, do I ever figger that them Small Dead Anti-Earthers is about as anti-conservative as they can get. Wanton waste does not equal conservatism in anybody’s dictionary.

JB