Posted Sun, 03/02/2014 – 12:36
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is not a government panel or an independent third party organization. It is run by the nuclear power industry. They have orchestrated the process with communities like Creighton so that it completely controls the agenda – timelines, deadlines & information flow.
Potential host communities owe it to themselves to obtain as much objective and science-based information from independent sources as possible. The decision to proceed or not must be very carefully weighed because of the huge potential risks. The impacts of radioactive contamination would be felt for many centuries.
For the full article with illustrations see pdf
Consider this:
• This project would not be the economic driver promised by NWMO – it is not like a long term extractive mining venture. The range of jobs indicated by NWMO suggests that competition for these jobs would be national, maybe international. There would be no long term job security for the people of Creighton. In fact the perceived stigma of a nuclear waste dump would negatively impact future tourism, fishing, hunting and vacationing. If it is going to be such an economic boon, why are large cities in Ontario not competing for it?
• When it comes to toxic waste no community is an island unto itself. Towns and RM’s share rivers, aquifers, weather systems, and transportation networks. If a nuclear waste dump is built in Creighton, tens of thousands of truckloads of hazardous radiotoxic material will be travelling to Saskatchewan through Manitoba from nuclear reactors in Central Canada and elsewhere. Statistically speaking, accidents are bound to happen. Countless communities would be put at risk.
• Saskatchewan and Manitoba are globally important food producing areas. Any accident in waste transportation or storage would negatively affect future safety of local food and water supplies as well as sales of Canada’s food crops to the world. Why would we risk our food and water security?
• There are serious scientific deficiencies in the NWMO geologic disposal concept that are not noted in their promotional material, but have been identified in other studies ( see Links…) Extensive drilling & excavating would compromise the integrity of the surrounding rock. Resulting fracturing and faulting will create faster routes for radionuclide escape.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) published data and graphs showing how the decay heat from buried high-level nuclear waste will heat the underground rock formations for 50,000 years (thermal pulse). Prolonged heat and chemical reactions will exacerbate damage to containers and the surrounding rock.
• The proposed nuclear waste containment technology is highly speculative –technically, the containers cannot be assured to last as long as the waste is toxic, at least 100,000 years. The computer models used by the NWMO cannot accurately predict the long timescales required. Science simply cannot make such extremely complex long range predictions.
• The waste consists of so called “spent” fuel bundles which are actually millions of times more radioactive and deadly than the fuel bundles were before being irradiated in nuclear reactor cores. They contain more than 200 fission and activation products, most of them highly radioactive materials not found in nature. These are known to cause cancer, immune system damage, genetic defects in offspring and other serious health problems.
• There are sound alternative options for managing high-level radioactive waste. One responsible and viable option gaining acceptance, currently by over 200 organizations, is Hardened On Site Storage (HOSS), with Rolling Stewardship, located on or near reactor sites.
The USA has tried 8 times to site a nuclear waste repository and has failed all 8 times. Germany recently revealed that the Asse Mine, an underground storage facility for nuclear waste, has filed completely and is leaking badly.
Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment in Manitoba did ALL the Canadian field research on Deep Geologic Disposal. Then In 1987 the Manitoba Legislature passed a law forbidding the disposal of high-level nuclear waste in the province. In 2008 the Quebec National Assembly passed a motion, unanimously with no abstentions, banning the storage in Quebec of nuclear waste from other provinces.
Creighton Saskatchewan is being targeted
Let’s not become North America’s nuclear garbage dump!
The NWMO proposal is a massive gamble.
It could mean radioactive contamination of the whole area. If it’s safe, why not leave it where it is?
It’s not worth the risk.
The danger of radioactivity will remain forever –long after the money and jobs run out.
Let’s not sell out our future generations.
Links for additional information:
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
CCNR What Scientists Don’t Know About Geological Disposal
Hardened On Site Storage (HOSS)
Hultquist, Water Corrodes Copper
NWMO’s Independent Technical Review Group (ITRG) identified problems with the NWMO vertical shaft design copy ITRG Report – see pages 5 & 6
