Nuclear reactor seems done deal
By Bob Fink, Special to The Star Phoenix May 29, 2009
Following is the viewpoint of the writer, a resident of Saskatoon.
There are several reasons to believe the decision to build a reactor in Saskatchewan has been made already.
- Claims that unlike burning coal, reactors will not pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse gases are false, as many in government and industry already know.
- Nuclear power is unnecessary anyway, in light of known experience with successful renewable energy in Germany and elsewhere, so pushing for nuclear is based on greed, not need. The government-run "public consultation" amounts only to window-dressing.
- Misinformation by government, media and corporate proponents favouring a reactor sanitizes the actual dangers, history and public costs of nuclear power, not to mention unsolved problems in storing nuclear waste for centuries.
- In any accident like Chernobyl 23 years ago in the Ukraine, huge areas of our planet's surface will become uninhabitable virtually forever, along with thousands of casualties. Another tragedy like Chernobyl can never be justified, even if risks are minimal (which they aren't), unless the risk is nonexistent. But considering nuclear accidents to date, no proponent for a reactor can ever guarantee zero risk.
- Truth about Chernobyl was initially repressed, but today, as more information and every new study shows, the historic disaster was far worse than what's being whitewashed by advocates.
Government and industry already have all these facts available, but pretend the reactor is still plausible.
These details show otherwise:
Since Chernobyl's No. 4 reactor melted down, the area today remains uninhabitable. Over 100,000 had to abandon their family homes, property and belongings located within the "exclusion zone" of 2,826 square kilometers. They have not been allowed to return.
Virtually empty of human life, fruit orchards are unpicked; radioactive fruit is left rotting. Produce grown from radioactive soil delivers radioactivity directly into bloodstream and bone marrow. The fuel rods' explosion ejected radioactivity high into the atmosphere. Surrounding soil is contaminated with cesium, plutonium and strontium.
Did 50 people die, or 50,000? The International Atomic Energy Agency's "experts" say Chernobyl claimed 56 lives to date. But the Ukrainian National Council on Radiation Protection possesses documentation of 34,499 deaths. The World Health Organization in 2003 estimated 50,000 Chernobyl workers died from radiation exposure or committed suicide.
Soviet leaders under Mikhail Gorbachev were silent or lied about it. When the USSR collapsed, victims' medical files and evidence against bureaucrats "disappeared." But 23 years later, documented evidence still exists that show the disaster's real magnitude. The British scientific journal, Nature, concurred.
Genetic mutations in children whose parents were exposed, show effects also being passed from generation to generation, including deformed limbs, missing ears and feet with up to eight toes.
The IAEA said about genetic defects: "No evidence was found whatsoever for genetic anomalies ... attributed to radiation exposure."
About 70 per cent of the fallout landed on and around Belarus, meaning about five million people absorbed high levels of radiation. Ukrainian radiation expert Viktor Poyarkov said 50 per cent of the fuel escaped in 1986. Scientists at the Kurchatov Institute now believe almost all radioactive material was released.
The most dramatic reality: The problem exists well beyond the original site, after radiation dispersed into the world's atmosphere. Nearly 370 farms in Great Britain are still restricted how they use land and raise sheep because of radioactive fallout from Chernobyl, the government has admitted.
Scientists in Britain and the Netherlands revised estimates of how long radioactive contamination will last in Wales, Scotland and north England, to 100 times longer than first thought. The future is far worse around Chernobyl, where 52,000 square kilometres of agricultural land in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are still contaminated, and agricultural restrictions may continue there for at least another 50 years, likely for centuries.
Essentially, large parts of our planet have been killed. There is no point risking such ecological costs, and possibly far worse deadly consequences, especially when the next accident either could be generations from now or just next year. Germany's example with using renewable energy shows a better path for us.
To spurn that option is a violation of common sense and shows this government prefers a "climate change" that trumps safety, people and the environment, and is good only for making profits.
© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix
Source
__________________________
Opposition vocal at nuclear hearings
By Jeremy Warren, The Star Phoenix May 29, 2009
After three days of public meetings on the future of nuclear development in Saskatchewan, patterns are emerging from the individual presentations, says the man who will produce a report on all he's heard.
"People feel they're rushed and need more time (for consultations)," said Dan Perrins, who chairs the meeting that began this week in Saskatoon.
Renewable energy has also dominated the public comments, he added.
"There's a view that there isn't enough renewable energy information as there is on nuclear energy right now," said Perrins.
He spent Tuesday to Thursday listening to 15-minute presentations from organizations that signed up for the one-on-one meetings.
A tour of public meetings in 10 communities begins Monday in Yorkton. That part of the consultation tour stops again in Saskatoon on June 15.
Organized by the Enterprise and Innovation Ministry, the public meetings will gather responses to the Uranium Partnership Development's report, which studied ways to further nuclear development in the province.
The partnership recommended the construction of a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan.
It's too early for conclusions, but so far the majority of presenters oppose nuclear development, "which, if you saw the list (of presenters), wouldn't surprise you," Perrins said.
"There's been lots of criticism, but on the positive side, people seem to be looking at alternatives. But we're only into the second day."
The 31 presentations were made mostly by environmental, community and church groups, with a few by business and industry.
Groups were asked to submit presentations before the meetings. Those documents can be found at
www.saskuranium.ca.
jjwarren@sp.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix
Source