Stop the Hogs!

SASKATCHEWAN NOW TARGETED FOR NUCLEAR DUMP

Coalition for Clean Green Sask Non-Nuclear Strategy

Why the COALITION for a CLEAN GREEN SASK (CCGS) SUPPORTS A NON-NUCLEAR ENERGY STRATEGY - February 01, 2009.

The CCGS is made up of a growing network of diverse grass-roots organizations across rural, northern and urban Saskatchewan that supports Saskatchewan quickly moving towards a sustainable society. Changing our energy system is vital to this, and this can be accomplished through a combination of conservation, energy efficiency, co-generation, wind, solar photovoltaic, biomass and small-scale hydro. A host of producers including small business, farmers, First Nations, co-ops, villages and towns being paid a fair tariff for feeding renewable electricity into the public grid will enable us to phase-out the coal-fired plants (and their greenhouse gases) which presently produce more than half of our electricity. Though still far behind other jurisdictions in this regard, with net-metering, the Small Producers Program and more wind farms and co-generation on the way, we are starting to move in the right direction.

WHY WE OPPOSE BRUCE POWER BUILDING NUCLEAR PLANTS ALONG THE NORTH SASK RIVER

Rather than going in this direction of sustainable energy, the formation of the Saskatchewan Uranium Development Partnership (SUDP) by the Sask Party government has given the nuclear industry the inside track to provincial energy policy. In the name of adding economic value to the uranium industry, serious consideration is being given to expanding the nuclear fuel chain in our province.

There are four major reasons why nuclear power is not in the fundamental public interest for present or future citizens of Saskatchewan, and why the Sask Party government should reconsider and embrace the sustainable energy path.

1) NUCLEAR POWER OBSTRUCTS AN EFFECTIVE CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY:

Nuclear power is not a “clean” energy alternative to coal. It would take 2,500 nuclear power plants worldwide, requiring one new plant built somewhere every week until 2050, to replace coal-generated electricity. There are presently 439 nuclear plants operating worldwide and only 35 new ones under construction. And a full energy audit shows a carbon footprint from huge uranium mines, such as exist in Northern Saskatchewan, through energy-intensive uranium enriching to nuclear plant construction, decommissioning and spent fuel storage. Were nuclear-energy expanded fourfold this would only reduce total greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 4%, which is why 300 international NGO’s are now calling for nuclear power to be dropped off the list of options for reducing carbon under the Kyoto Accord. If all U.S. vehicles were powered with new technology charged with nuclear-generated electricity the carbon footprint would be 25 times more than would come from using wind generation. Reduction of electrical demand, especially for buildings, which are responsible for most electrical consumption, but can become net-producers of electricity; and the revolution in “micropower”, including distributed renewable resources across the public grid, are already proving to be the cost-effective means for reducing GHGs.

The nuclear industry has always exaggerated its growth: in the 1980s it said there would be 1,000 Gigawatt (GW) nuclear capacity worldwide by 1990, but it turned out to be 260 GW. It’s now 372 GW. The industry is now predicting from 447-679 GW by 2030, which is less than they said would exist by 1990. So we can add the “nuclear renaissance” to the long list of nuclear myths; e.g. “it’s too cheap to meter”, “the peaceful atom”, “the clean energy”. In 2005, renewable electrical capacity surpassed nuclear worldwide, and it continues to grow while nuclear declines. Even if all the new nuclear plants under construction and those being proposed came on-steam, and there was expensive refurbishing to extend the life of aging reactors, the number of plants approaching decommissioning in coming decades would far outstrip all proposed growth in nuclear capacity. So what we are really seeing is a nuclear phase-out. But what of Asia, where most of the new reactors are being built? Japan, which produces nearly half of Asia’s total nuclear electricity, has had to shut down 7 reactors since the 2007 earthquake. China presently only gets 2% of its electricity from nuclear, and its renewable-electrical capacity is already 7X that of nuclear. In 2007 China added more wind capacity than the world added nuclear. India, only gets 3% of its electricity from nuclear, and continues to exaggerate nuclear growth, as it has for decades. Canada helped India get nuclear weapons in the 1970s, and we must strongly oppose the Harper government, AECL and Cameco negotiating nuclear agreements with India, which continues to refuse to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Industrialized as well as developing countries clearly have to work together to implement an effective non-nuclear energy strategy to avert global warming.

2) THE NUCLEAR FUEL CHAIN ENDANGERS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE:

Other jurisdictions (B.C., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Labrador, and 20 Ontario municipalities including the City of Ottawa) have or call for moratoria on uranium exploration because adjacent watersheds are threatened by drilling and the radioactive uranium mine tailings that are dumped into the biosphere by the nuclear industry. Saskatchewan launched uranium mining in the secrecy of the War Measures Act during WW II, and we continue to avoid this matter of watershed protection. Uranium workers and communities nearby uranium mines continue to face greater risks from radon gas (the second cause of lung cancer) and other radioactive exposure. Toxic heavy metals, including uranium, continue to bio-accumulate in adjacent waterways and food-chains. Nuclear power regularly spews invisible but dangerous radioactive isotopes into the environment and a series of European and American studies now link proximity to nuclear facilities to greater deaths of children from leukemia. The nuclear industry continues to create high-level nuclear wastes that must be isolated from the biosphere for millions of years, while there is no credible long-term waste storage strategy. While other jurisdictions (e.g. Manitoba, Quebec) have banned nuclear wastes, Saskatchewan continues to be targeted for “deep geological storage”. Indigenous communities who already face the greatest dangers from uranium mining are now being targeted by the industry-run Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) for such an agreement. Under George Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Project (GNEP), uranium producers would be required to take back nuclear wastes, and AECL’s proposed Advanced Candu Reactor which Bruce Power is considering building here would be able to use spent fuel from abroad. Isn’t it time that Saskatchewan passed its own legislation banning nuclear wastes?

In spite of nuclear industry fear-mongering about medical diagnosis and cancer treatment, isotopes for nuclear medicine can and should be provided without maintaining this dangerous nuclear fuel chain. New, truly clean, renewable sources of electricity are quickly coming on-steam that don’t require ecologically-damaging mining for toxic fuel, nor create a radioactive waste stream that will endanger us and future generations. Nor do the renewables contaminate or squander the lake or river water presently used for cooling coal and nuclear thermal plants. It’s a no-brainer: a non-nuclear energy strategy is the way to preserve and restore environmental and human health.

3) THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS STILL INVOLVED IN THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS:

Canada has been a willing partner in the creation of nuclear weapons from the start. The Chalk River plant in Ontario was a pioneer in isolating plutonium for nuclear weapons, and it laid the basis for the British weapons program and supplied plutonium directly to the U.S. It was also the site of the world’s first nuclear reactor accident in 1952.The Port Hope plant in Ontario was where the uranium used in the bomb dropped on the people of Hiroshima was refined. And Cameco, which now operates a uranium conversion plant, continues to contaminate the Port Hope region and Lake Ontario. Uranium mined at Uranium City in Saskatchewan and Elliot Lake in Ontario was a major source of fuel for the U.S. nuclear weapons build-up during the 1950s and 1960s. And, in spite of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), uranium from Saskatchewan continues to go to nuclear weapons states, notably France and the U.S., where the military has access to the depleted uranium (DU) left from enriching uranium for nuclear power plants. DU weapons used by NATO and the U.S. since the 1990s have escalated birth deformations and childhood cancers in the populated war zones. We can no longer turn our heads from this immorality or try to justify our complicity with a few short-term jobs or measly royalties. It’s time to face up: the so-called “peaceful atom” still goes to war. A non-nuclear energy policy is therefore vital to decrease the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation and increase international peace and security.

4) FULL COSTING OF NUCLEAR POWER WOULD REMOVE IT AS AN ENERGY OPTION:

The nuclear power industry was created and sustained through massive state subsidies and bailouts. In Canada these are now well over 20 billion dollars without considering the cost of debt and interest. And the Harper government continues throwing taxpayer’s money at the nuclear industry even though it’s been proven that it is not a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gases. Even without including government-backing for liability insurance, and costs for decommissioning and endless nuclear waste storage, nuclear power is already 2 to 3 times the cost of most of its competitors. Huge debt loads are created by the cost-overruns of nuclear plant construction, as well as refurbishing aging reactors which will cost $5 billion for Bruce Power’s plant in Ontario. While economic development bribes are offered from nuclear mega-projects, renewable energy produces far more employment, and this is sustainable and strengthens local economies. Wind power, for example, provides more than 5X the jobs as does nuclear power for generating the same amount of electricity. Bruce Power’s proposal for nuclear plants on Saskatchewan’s relatively small grid would require massive public costs for expanding the public grid for profitable exports, while still requiring expensive back-up capacity due to the unreliability of nuclear power. Due to its inflexibility and risk of accidents, nuclear power cannot be used to meet peak-load demand and is an expensive way to provide base load power. And it’s an industry-promoted myth that renewable energy can’t provide base load power. Meanwhile due to its scale, nuclear power would squeeze out the cheaper and safer renewable alternatives from the Saskatchewan market.

We can’t let this happen. Nuclear power is a risky and costly way to boil water to turn turbines to generate electricity. Electricity can be generated without endangering future generations, and Saskatchewan should therefore reject Bruce Power attempt to build nuclear plants here. Nuclear power is not a sound energy, environmental, health or water policy but primarily a backdoor to lucrative privatization of the electrical sector in Saskatchewan. The CCGS will therefore work strenuously to ensure that Saskatchewan follows a non-nuclear energy policy that is economically and ecologically sustainable.

IF YOUR ORGANIZATION SUPPORTS THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES PLEASE CONTACT US AT: cleangreensask@yahoo.ca

NOTE: A longer Position Paper with references supporting the above policies is available upon request.

Citizens groups question legitimacy of uranium panel report

Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan (CCGS)

MEDIA RELEASE – Saskatoon - April 3, 2009

The Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan (CCGS), made up of citizens in rural and urban Saskatchewan who promote a non nuclear future for our province, is critical of the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) report released today.

The UDP is not neutral: it is a nuclear industry panel appointed by a pro-nuclear government.

Several members have been employed by the nuclear industry, three are CEOs of nuclear companies.

Their recommendations are driven by their agenda to manufacture consent. We need to restore public trust before going any further.

According to Bruce Power's own survey there is near unanimous (95%) support for renewable energy in Saskatchewan.

Why then was $2.5 million spent to study nuclear options, and no money allocated to study and plan a clean energy future based on conservation, efficiency, cogeneration, solar, wind, small-scale hydro, biomass and geothermal?

The Coalition believes nuclear waste storage is at the core of the industry's intentions for Saskatchewan.

Uranium development is simply the "Trojan Horse" being used to bring it to our doorstep.

The federal agency responsible for nuclear waste storage in Canada has been looking at Saskatchewan as a potential site for nuclear waste dumping.

Nuclear waste is piling up all around the world, but long-term storage has no willing takers.

If we end up with radioactive wastes generated by unnecessary atomic reactors or uranium refineries, there will be great pressure put upon us to also store hundreds of thousands of tonnes of highly dangerous substances from elsewhere ­- waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years.

What kind of legacy is that to leave to our grandchildren and their grandchildren?

The Coalition urges the provincial government to engage with citizens in an open, honest and transparent process to examine Saskatchewan's energy future rather than to impose a rushed public consultation process designed by, and for, the nuclear industry.

In the meantime, we urge communities threatened with the spectre of a nuclear reactor or uranium refinery near their homes to organize, seek legal advice, and legally petition their municipal councils to avoid or prevent hasty compliance with the agendas of corporate interests.
- 30 -

For more information please contact:

Karen Pedersen: 398-7726 (Cut Knife)
Steve Lawrence: 922-1062 (Prince Albert)
Paul-Emile L¹Heureux ­ bilingual: 276-5770 or 862-4671 (Whitefox)
Jim Penna: 373-0309 (Saskatoon)
Dave Weir: 691-8351 or 352-3195; Jim Elliott: 352-4804 (Regina)
Jim Harding: 569-1321 (Regina)

Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan
www.cleangreensask.ca

CLEAN GREEN SASKATCHEWAN’S POSITION ON NUCLEAR WASTE IN SASKATCHEWAN

September 17, 2009

The Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan objects to the secretive consultations that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is currently holding in Saskatchewan.

The NWMO is a federal corporation made up of nuclear reactor waste producers from Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick (created by the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, S.C. 2002, c. 23). Any corporation or provincial utility that produces nuclear waste by generating electricity from a nuclear fission reactor, including a research reactor, must become a member and own shares in the NWMO (s.6).

The NWMO is targeting Saskatchewan as a possible high-level nuclear waste disposal site. It seeks a willing community to accept a “deep nuclear waste repository” in Ontario, Quebec or Saskatchewan. The most toxic materials on the planet would then, from the industry’s point of view, be out of sight, out of mind, swept under a metaphorical carpet.

While questioning the very legitimacy of the NWMO, we feel that at the very least any consultations by it should be announced well in advance and be completely open to ALL members of the public and media.

If any level of government -- municipal, provincial, Métis, First Nations, or Federal -- is negotiating the possibility of such a toxic waste dump for Saskatchewan, all negotiations should be made public and there should be open debate and even the possibility of a referendum on this issue.

Nonetheless, it is our firm belief that our provincial government should pass an act similar to Manitoba’s (1987) that outlaws the storage of nuclear waste from other jurisdictions. Such an act should also prevent the transportation of nuclear wastes through our province.

The industry underplays the scope of these nuclear fuel wastes—as equivalent to that of six hockey rinks full. The reality is that for the waste already accumulated (about 45,000 tonnes), it would take over 20,000 trucks a period of approximately thirty years to deliver the highly dangerous materials to a repository. The nuclear wastes, hot and highly fissionable, have to be widely separated and carefully packaged to avoid going “critical”. These and other hazards exist during transport and long after burial. No containers can last as long as the radioactive materials that they encase.

Used fuel bundles contain man-made highly radioactive isotopes with extremely long half-lives, such as: Iodine 129—16,000,000 years, Cesium 135—2,300,000 years, Technetium 99—211,000 years, Neptunium 237—2,100,000 years, Thorium 232—1,400,000,000 and Plutonium 239 — 24,000 years. This means that for half of each of these products to break down it will take up to 2 million years! (And remember that’s just half!) Plutonium is the key component in nuclear weapons. All these radioactive materials are known to cause cancer, genetic damage, and many other adverse health effects in humans and all living things.

Future generations of Saskatchewan people should not be left responsible for these hazards. EVERYBODY and all living beings in the province would be affected by transportation and storage of these materials.

Saskatchewan should not become the nuclear wastebasket of the world.
-30-

For further information contact:

Neil at 374-3401

or cleangreensask@yahoo.ca

or visit

http://sites.google.com/site/cleangreen ... earn-more/
nuclear-waste

or
www.cleangreensask.ca

SASKATCHEWAN NOW TARGETED FOR NUCLEAR DUMP

Dr. Jim Harding October 11, 2010

Southern Saskatchewan individuals and groups involved in the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan met at Fort Qu'Appelle Oct. 8-10th to discuss what to do about Saskatchewan being targeted as a nuclear waste dump. People came from Moose Jaw, Regina, Cupar, Indian Head, Archerwill and Fort Qu'Appelle, from Coalition member groups like Kairos, Council of Canadians, Greens and Clean Green Regina.

They agreed with the following points which will be taken to other Coalition members:

1. The Duty To Consult Can't Involve Economic Bribery.

The industry-based Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has confirmed that two of the four Canadian communities that it is talking to about becoming a nuclear dump are in northern Saskatchewan: at Pinehouse and English River. The other two are in northwestern Ontario, much closer to the nuclear power plants along the Great lakes that produce almost all of the nuclear waste in Canada.

Speaking for the English River band, Councillor Bernie Eaglechild said that “nothing has been decided and talks are still at an early stage”, emphasizing that “the band can still back out at any time.” Pinehouse mayor, Mike Natomagan, who also heads the Kineepik Métis Local, had a similar message; that this “learn more opportunity does not commit the village or Métis local to any further steps.” This doesn’t mean “Pinehouse has said ‘yes’ to the project”.

But can negotiating with the NWMO lead to informed consent. Under both international law and Canada’s Charter of Rights the “Duty to Consult” means there must be “free, prior and informed consent.” The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples makes it clear that this can’t involve monetary inducements such as the NWMO is using. Informed consent requires sufficient time to consider all relevant information, from all sides of the controversy, and not being bribed under the threat of losing benefits to another community.

And we know that northern communities are being bribed to take nuclear wastes. In November 2009 the NWMO met privately with all the Environmental Quality Committees (EQC) across the north. In its 2009 Report the government-run North Saskatchewan Environmental Quality Committee (NSEQC) said that the NWMO made “communities aware of the opportunities to host a nuclear waste management storage site.” It continued, “There will be incredible economic benefits to such a community, but suitable geology and accessibility are also factors.” Such bribery is outrageous and must be stopped.

The neo-colonial situation surrounding the uranium industry in the north will not and cannot encourage informed consent. Since 1991 Cameco has supported importing Ontario’s nuclear waste, including from its co-owned Bruce Power nuclear complex. It sees this as a lucrative business venture. It is now concentrating toxic, radioactive uranium tailings at its huge Key Lake mine site, and having Pinehouse, south of Key Lake, as a nuclear waste dump would fit in with a nuclear industry waste corridor in north central Saskatchewan. Prince Albert and La Ronge would become the gateway to nuclear wastes, not a gateway to northern fishing, hunting and eco-tourism.

2. Saskatchewan Is Not Morally Obliged To Take Nuclear Wastes

A few people argue that we are morally obliged to take back nuclear wastes from nuclear plants that use uranium from Saskatchewan. This is absurd and would lead us to become an international nuclear dump for the U.S., France, Japan and many other countries that buy uranium from here. Also, Ontario should be responsible for its own nuclear wastes and should have had a nuclear waste plan before it built all its nuclear power plants. Furthermore, after the UDP consultations, the Saskatchewan government decided not to support Bruce Power’s proposal to build nuclear plants along the North Saskatchewan River. One of the main reasons Saskatchewan people opposed nuclear power was because they did not want to create nuclear wastes.

3. A Nuclear Dump Is No Path To Northern Development

So why are these northern communities even considering a nuclear dump? English River’s Councillor Eaglechild says “the band is tired of seeing resources hauled out of its traditional land without receiving any payments for it”, and Pinehouse’s Mayor Natomagan notes the recent Conference Board study showing northern Saskatchewan having the second lowest median income of any Canadian region. This concern about the wealth of resource development not being shared with the north is compelling and, along with the cumulative ecological effects of uranium mine expansion, was the main reason why the Joint Federal Provincial Panel in the 1990s recommended against two uranium mines going ahead. But a nuclear dump makes no economic sense compared with much cheaper sustainable options such as adding value to the renewable sectors in the north. Creating a deep geological repository to store nuclear wastes would be even more capital-intensive than uranium mining. And the Conference Board study that Pinehouse’s mayor refers to, confirms that the north remained amongst Canada’s poorest regions, even though it has been the highest uranium-producing and most profitable uranium mining region in the world.

4. All of Saskatchewan Must Be Involved in Decision

The question we should be asking is: “why these northern Métis and First Nations communities are so hard-pressed that they have to consider bringing deadly radioactive wastes into the north to create a few toxic jobs”? An even more fundamental question is: “why the NWMO is able to end-run the people of Saskatchewan and negotiate the location of a nuclear dump in the province solely with a northern Métis or First Nations community?” Why are the rest of us being left out of the process?

5. Saskatchewan Should Pass Ban On Transportation and Storage of Nuclear Wastes

In 1987, the NDP government of Manitoba acted to protect the long-term public and environmental health of its people by legislating a ban on the importation and storage of nuclear wastes. Quebec did the same thing in 2008. Do Saskatchewan people deserve anything less?

Just why is the Wall-led government allowing the industry’s NWMO to travel around the North and privately negotiate the location of a nuclear dump that will affect people throughout the whole province? At the 2009 NDP convention, held just after Lingenfelter was elected as party leader, the delegates passed a resolution that an NDP government will not consider “storing nuclear wastes under any circumstances.” This resolution was co-sponsored by Regina’s Douglas Park constituency which later elected Lingenfelter as an MLA. So when will the NDP opposition and its leader start standing up for the rights of Saskatchewan people on this matter? Have provincial politics become so personal and vindictive that vital matters of ecology and justice aren’t worth the effort?

The Wall government’s own 2009 public consultations on the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) found that, of the thousands who participated, over 80% opposed bringing nuclear wastes to the province. At its last provincial conference the United Church passed a resolution calling for a ban on nuclear wastes in the province. This public opinion, including coming from what the government itself called the most extensive public consultations ever held on the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan, must be respected. We now need a provincial ban on transporting and storing nuclear wastes. It is the right thing to do!

Harding speaks in Wynyard about Why Saskatchewan Needs a Ban on Nuclear Waste

Published in Wynyard Advance Gazette on December 20, 2010

“Nuclear Waste: Stop Making It” was the theme of a lecture delivered by Dr. Jim Harding to the members of the Quill Plains Chapter of the Council of Canadians in Wynyard on December 4.

Dr. Harding began with a brief history of the uranium industry in Saskatchewan and Canada, including details about the secret export of uranium from Uranium City (and Elliot Lake, Ont.) to the US for weapons purposes through the 1950s and 1960s.

He noted that Saskatchewan is under no obligation to take back nuclear wastes from these weapons or from any other user of uranium, including nuclear power plants.

Harding said the threat of a nuclear waste storage site at Whiteshell Experimental Station at Lac du Bonnet east of Winnipeg brought the public together and resulted in a ban against nuclear waste storage in Manitoba.
He went on to warn that the industry-run Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) now has plans to bring High Level Nuclear Waste from Ontario nuclear power plants into a willing community for permanent storage in northern Saskatchewan.

Two possible areas currently under consideration as a storage site are the Metis community of Pinehouse or the FSIN community of Patuanak. Harding said that on November 17, 2010, the NWMO announced it would be providing the FSIN with $1 million over several years for ‘capacity-building and education’, and that the Saskatchewan Métis Nation has also taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NWMO.

Harding reminded the small group that had gathered for the lecture at the Wynyard Unitarian Church that Cameco co-owns the privatized nuclear power plants operated in Ontario by Bruce Power. He then pointed out that they are responsible for accumulating over 40 % of Canada’s total nuclear wastes.

In 2005, the NWMO estimated that in Canada there were 1.8 million spent fuel bundles totaling 40,000 tonnes of nuclear wastes.

Harding added, "Currently, there are nearly 2 million highly radioactive spent fuel bundles and our next generation will have to deal with double that number if existing plants are allowed to operate for their projected life span….On-site storage should be maintained, upgraded and secured,” Harding said.

He then pointed out that transporting this highly radioactive nuclear waste from the nuclear plants – mostly in southern Ontario – down the new Plutonium Parkway to northern Saskatchewan, would involve about 20,000 heavily armed truck or trainloads travelling in perpetuity past farms, towns and cities in northern Ontario, southern Manitoba, and southern and northern Saskatchewan.

He said that the fossil fuel and carbon footprint resulting from this would make a mockery of the nuclear industry’s claim to be clean energy, adding that "At such a frequency, transportation accidents are almost certain. Over and above that, no matter which community ends up taking the waste, that one community will be allowed to do an end-run on democracy, forcing the rest of those along the transportation route to face the danger from a spill," he said.

Harding recommended that immediate steps must be taken to stop the production of deadly wastes and reduce the burden of managing the wastes for the necessary 100,000 years – many times humanity’s recorded history – and that a moratorium and phase-out of nuclear power is required in order to avoid a further build-up of nuclear wastes as a curse to future generations.

He said that member groups of the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan will begin to hold public information meetings along the Yellowhead Highway, and into the north, including at communities targeted by the NWMO.

The Coalition will also begin a campaign to win a legislated nuclear waste ban in Saskatchewan and positive, sustainable economic development options for the north. The group will provide "comprehensive, balanced information on nuclear wastes, and the alternative to producing more of these deadly wastes or creating a nuclear dump," he added.

In closing, he encouraged others to join the campaign, stating that, “our children’s children are counting on us!”

For more information, please visit:
http://jimharding.brinkster.net

WHY THE NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN FORUM VOTED TO BAN NUCLEAR WASTES

BY Jim Harding

R-Town Papers, June 10, 2011

On the afternoon of June 2nd two hundred people mostly from ten northern communities gathered in the school auditorium at Beauval for the "Forum for Truth on Nuclear Waste Storage". It was organized by the recently formed Committee for Future Generations, which in barely two weeks got the word out all across northern Saskatchewan. When I arrived at Beauval late on June 1st I was astonished by the number of road signs announcing the event.

People came from Beauval, La Loche, Buffalo Narrows, Ile a la Crosse, Canoe Narrows, Turnor Lake, Pinehouse, Patuanak and La Ronge. A few also came from Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Lloydminster and Regina. Northern mayors, elders, women and youth attended, with the presence of youth being remarkably strong. When I walked into the school auditorium I was greeted by students holding signs they had painted for the forum, saying: "Why here?; "We Want To Keep Our Environment Clean and Safe"; "Why Is This Happening?", and "Is Mother Earth Important To You?" One read: "We Don't Want Your Death Money!"

Great concern was expressed about the way the nuclear industry was trying to buy its way into northern politics and culture. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has created a committee of hand-picked, paid "elders" who they say will bring an "Aboriginal perspective" to the search for a northern community to host a nuclear dump. The Committee for Future Generations has asked "who are they, how were they appointed, what is the protocol for representation, how are they being accountable to the people, and how are they getting paid?" These are questions the NWMO should answer.

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and Métis Council of Canada have warned of this insidious approach. In its 2005 report the AFN said "To cite with favour the seven generations teaching while at the same time promoting nuclear energy is inconsistent at best and at worst denigrates and belittles the value of Traditional Knowledge and the First Nations cultures, beliefs and spiritual practices."

DEATH MONEY

If NWMO sincerely wanted to get aboriginal community perspective it would have come to this widely-attended gathering. But Pat Patton, who heads up NWMO's "Aboriginal Relations", declined. It turned out that her previous commitment was taking Pinehouse and Patuanak officials to tour a nuclear facility in eastern Canada. So while people from the communities being targeted for a nuclear dump gathered to ask questions and air concerns, some elected community officials were away on a nuclear industry-sponsored tour.

This is clearly more about manipulation than consultation.

The Committee for Future Generations calls for complete transparency of NWMO's activities in the north. Many at the forum expressed concerns and even anger about all the meetings behind closed doors. A closed NWMO strategy meeting at Pinehouse May 4th inadvertently left its flip-charts behind. These were most revealing. One recorded comment was about "sugar-coating the information" going into the north. Another was about being sure there were "knowledge interpreters". Some NWMO-selected, paid "elders" were in attendance.

The NWMO is following a two-track strategy in the north. On the one hand it says that a community has to agree to "host" a nuclear dump; that there must be "informed consent". On the other hand it works behind the scene, with multi-million dollar inducements, to make sure some people are already benefitting, while sugar-coating a nuclear dump to sound good for the north. Several Métis and First Nations leaders spoke eloquently about how NWMO's process is undermining the duty to consult. NWMO's deceit is starting to unravel.

FINDING BALANCE

The NWMO wouldn't send anyone to this first large northern forum on nuclear wastes. It also wrote the organizers that high-profile paid "elders" like Jim Sinclair couldn't speak for NWMO. But the Committee for Future Generations didn't want the forum to occur without the NWMO's position being fairly presented. They did not want to repeat what the NWMO does and present only one side of the controversy. So right at the beginning they played two NWMO's video's describing the nuclear waste repository project.

I was then invited to speak about why Saskatchewan should declare a ban on nuclear wastes. I've read most NWMO documents as part of my ongoing research, but was still taken by the statement in one video that their nuclear waste containers would "last 100,000 years". How can any credible organization make such a claim? And how would future generations ever verify this? Would people continue to communicate about NWMO's guarantee of a period ten times recorded history, and then, after 100,000 years, risk digging down to see if the containers were still intact? And if they weren't intact, where would they go? And anyway we know that the radioactivity in the nuclear wastes would actually rise after 100,000 years.

Such absurd NWMO claims show why an arms-length body, not controlled by industry, should be considering what to do with nuclear wastes. I asked those at the forum what they would think if DOW Chemical or DuPont came to their community to entice them to take their toxic chemical wastes. We wouldn't tolerate this. So why are the Wall and Harper governments even allowing the nuclear industry to try to find a place to dump their wastes in the north?

ARMS LENGTH GROUP

A non-industry group should be looking at realistic options for nuclear wastes, including stopping producing them. And you can be sure that it wouldn't consider trucking 18,000 truckloads of high-level nuclear wastes half way across Canada to dump in northern Saskatchewan. The only reason the industry is shopping around here is because Ontario doesn't want to have to dump its nuclear wastes within its more densely populated province. And the major rationale for centralizing waste storage is to be able to get the plutonium as a future fuel source.

If a geological repository was such a safe idea and would bring such economic benefits, why isn't it happening in southern Ontario, near the nuclear plants? The nuclear plants are, after all, also in the Canadian Shield. History explains! Northern Ontario kicked the industry out in the 1970s, Manitoba did the same thing in the 1980s, and now Quebec has banned importing nuclear wastes. When the industry came to Saskatchewan in 1991, to the Meadow Lake Tribal Council (MLTC), they were also told to go home. But the industry has come back in sheep's clothing, peddling the same idea that was rejected by the federal inquiry in 1998. This time the NWMO is playing the economic card in a big way.

FORUM SAYS NO!

The Committee for Future Generations has seen through the deceit. After seeing NWMO's videos, hearing the argument for a nuclear waste ban, and hearing from many people from the north, the forum voted unanimously to ban nuclear wastes in Saskatchewan. It also voted to hold more open forums, the next one to be held in Pinehouse where the NWMO is in negotiations to host a nuclear dump. After that they will go to Patuanak, the other targeted community. Some elders also asked for their names and photos to be removed from NWMO documents, so there was no impression being left that they supported a nuclear dump in the north. Now we will have to wait and see whether the NWMO just ups the ante, and pours even more "death money" into the north, or whether the hand-picked "elders" still receiving NWMO money finally realize they don't speak for their communities.

This is self-determination and participatory democracy in action. People throughout the south who don't want to see nuclear wastes trucked along their highways should support the northerners who have spoken at this forum. You can show your support by contacting: committeeforfuturegenerations@gmail.com or going to their Face book: "Say No To Nuclear Waste Storage In Northern Saskatchewan".

more on nuclear waste at:
http://jimharding.brinkster.net

Northern communities discuss nuclear waste

http://www.meadowlakeprogress.com/Artic ... ?e=3165326

By Mark Melnychuk June 10, 2011

Both the benefits and risks of storing nuclear waste were up for discussion at an open forum in Beauval.

The Northern Forum for Truth on Nuclear Waste Storage was hosted by the Committee for Future Generations, and was held on June 2. More than 200 people attended the event.

Mayors and band councillors from as far south as Saskatoon were invited. Although community leaders were asked to show up, organizers said they didn't want the forum to become a political battleground. Instead, they wanted to inform members of the public who could one day have the responsibility of deciding if they would like to store nuclear waste.

"We want transparency, we want the truth, and we want to be included," said organizer Max C.D. Morin.

So far Pinehouse, English River First Nation and Creighton have expressed interest in the project.

Dr. Jim Harding, a retired justice studies professor and staunch opponent of nuclear power, delivered the keynote address.

Harding warned that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) couldn't guarantee that radioactive plutonium rods wouldn't affect the environment, even when buried 500 metres below ground.

"Do you want to be a party to an experiment that's potentially playing with a whole region of water and life and biodiversity, that is completely an experiment unproven anywhere," Harding asked the crowd.

Harding said an impartial scientific team needs to look at the effects of storage, and that Saskatchewan shouldn't be a dumping ground for nuclear power users in southern Canada.

The NWMO was unable to attend the conference due to scheduling conflicts. However, it did later respond to concerns.

The organization said scientists have studied natural uranium deposits formed billions of years ago at the Cigar Lake mine, and confirmed that certain geology barriers would guard the waste indefinitely.

"There is no evidence of any radio nucleates on the surface at Cigar Lake," said Michael Krizanc, a spokesperson for the NWMO.

Besides being safe, Krizanc pointed out that the nuclear storage would provide communities with hundreds of jobs.

Krizanc denied claims that northern Saskatchewan was being targeted as a dumping zone.

He said the project wouldn't be forced on any community unless they were totally willing to move ahead.

Several representatives from northern communities stated their objection to waste storage, including members of Waterhen Lake First Nation.

Band councillor Dennis Martell said the reserve's community doesn't want to take any chances with its natural resources.

"I've been asking around just to get a feeling of it and they said no, nothing's worth the price of the proposed nuclear waste site," said Martell.

Approximately two million used nuclear fuel bundles have been produced in Canada. The NWMO is in need of 250 acres of land to store them.

800 KM WALK HEATS UP NUCLEAR WASTE CONTROVERSY

BY Jim Harding

Published in R-Town News - August 5, 2011

Much has happened since the Forum for Truth on Nuclear Waste Storage was held in Beauval June 2nd. Organized in two weeks by the newly-formed Committee for Future Generations, the forum was attended by 200 people, most from ten northern communities. Within a few weeks committee members had organized a second forum, held in Pinehouse July 26th. The next day thirty northerners left Pinehouse to begin a twenty day, 7000 Generations Walk Against Nuclear Waste, which will end up at the Regina Legislature.

The 800 km walk will pass through twelve communities, with rallies in Prince Albert on August 3nd, Saskatoon on August 8th and Regina August 15th. On August 16th the walk will go down The Green Mile along Albert Street to present petitions to the Wall government. Organizers are encouraging supporters to join in the walk wherever they can and for however long they can. Several carloads are expected to join the walkers at Lumsden the morning of August 15th.

This is no small feat and walkers are bound to be tested by this summer’s extreme weather. First Nations, Métis, environmental and ecumenical networks are providing lodging, food and support along the route. This is an unprecedented event, with northerners calling for southern support to win a nuclear waste ban.

The mainstream media is finally reporting the growing opposition to a nuclear dump in the north. Provincial politics is heating up and the nuclear waste controversy may yet become a fall election issue. The NDP, which has a policy against a nuclear dump, has now indicated it will support the walk. We will see whether this resonates with the voting public or is seen as getting on the band wagon late in the game. Organizers want support from any and all groups that are willing to help; it’s a politically non-partisan action.

NWMO’S RESPONSE

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), which has been promoting a nuclear dump In the north, appears to have changed its approach since the success of the Beauval forum. On July 21st, a week prior to the July 26th Pinehouse forum, NWMO’s Communications Director, Jamie Robinson, contacted the Committee for Future Generations, the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Environmental Society (SES). It invited members to come on an all-expense paid tour “to a waste management facility at a nuclear generating station in South Ontario where used nuclear fuel is currently stored on an interim basis.” NWMO said it wanted to “hear their concerns and questions and to provide a briefing about our activities.”

These tours are regularly given to political officials and business groups to try to get them onside. The timing of this invitation to opponents of a nuclear dump is most interesting, for it came after the NWMO declined to send anyone to the Beauval forum. This was the largest, broadest-based discussion of nuclear wastes to occur in the north to date, and would have been an opportune time for them to hear “concerns and questions”. (The forum organizers wanted the industry view presented and when no one turned up they bent over backwards and played two NWMO videos at the beginning of the meeting.)

NWMO’s invitation could have created divisions, but on July 25th the Committee simply responded “we are unable to attend at this time as we are extremely busy with our forum in Pinehouse and our 7000 Generations Walk to the legislature in Regina.” We’ll have to wait and see whether the offer to take people opposed to a nuclear dump here, to Ontario, where the wastes are produced and should be stored, still stands after the summer’s activities.

TRANSPARENCY REQUIRED

The Committee for Future Generations has been calling for more transparency from NWMO; they want to know what money is going into the north as part of its promotions. A July 27th Star Phoenix story sheds some light on this, reporting that “Resources of up to $75,000 per community were made available for expenses incurred at this stage of the selection process…” The story fails, however, to mention the $1,000,000 that went to the FSIN or the $400,000 that went to the Métis Nation.

The Committee has also been asking NWMO what payments have been going to the hand-picked elders that are “advising” it. When pushed on this, NWMO’s Toronto-based spokesman, Michael Krizanc, admitted they received “a per diem that would be several hundred dollars a day”. That means that when NWMO-appointed elder, Jim Sinclair, for example, goes to any community forum to try to convince people to consider a nuclear dump, he is getting paid. Such monetary inducements completely go against the meaning of “duty to consult” and “informed consent”.

There’s a lot of twisting of words in this controversy. Pinehouse official Glen McCallum suggests that the community is “just interested in gathering information”, yet village officials haven’t contacted people outside the industry, and it took forming the Committee for Future Generations to get an open public forum in the community. It’s hard to accept that “there is no coercion” going on behind the scene. Industry spokesperson Krizanc says NWMO wants an “informed and willing” community to display its willingness in a “compelling” way, but then adds “we haven’t defined what a compelling way is yet”. What is compelling is the growing opposition to a nuclear dump!

MANIPULATION EXPOSED

Those working behind the scene may be getting nervous. Pinehouse spokesperson, Vince Natomagan, had an op ed in the July 28th Star Phoenix, just the day after the 7000 Generations Walk left his community. He attacked the June 2nd Beauval forum as sending a “fear-based, short-sighted message”, while failing to say anything about the opposition to a nuclear dump expressed at the July 26th Pinehouse forum . Natomagan tried to make the SES sound like it supported his position, without mentioning that the SES supports a ban on nuclear wastes in Saskatchewan. Natomagan supported Jim Sinclair, who was heckled at the Beauval forum, without mentioning that Sinclair was actually applauded when he started his speech by opposing a nuclear dump. Sinclair then flip-flopped and ended up supporting a dump as if that was the way to help the next generation avoid addiction, suicide and prison. Many present were aghast!

Such manipulation of the deep concern about the social crisis in the north may be backfiring. One of the founders of the Committee for Future Generations, retired RCMP officer, Max Morin, told the Star Phoenix he “was invited to be part of an elder’s summit focused on problems of death and addiction among the community’s youth. Two hours in, the meeting turned out to be a presentation on nuclear waste storage set up by those working with NWMO.”

Northern Saskatchewan remains the second poorest region in all of Canada in spite of the uranium mining “boom”, and bringing 20,000 truckloads of highly radioactive nuclear wastes to the north will not change the highly inequitable pattern of mal-development. A new, sustainable path will need to be charted. Natomagan talks rhetorically about “standing up straight and making an informed decision”. The northerners walking from Pinehouse to Regina are not only standing up for the future of the north but for the future of the whole province.

Other articles at:

http://jimharding.brinkster.net

QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE LONG TERM MANAGEMENT METHODS RECEIVING INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION (NWMO) by Gordon Edwards 2005/Conclusion 2011

http://ccnr.org/GE_NWMO_ITK_Questions.pdf

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization mentions a number of long-term management methods for nuclear fuel waste which have received some degree of international attention.

The following questions were posed by an Inuit woman who was involved in some of the NWMO dialogue meetings. Gordon Edwards attempted to give some answers.

1) Boreholes: What effects would it have on the environment? With wastes buried underground would this have any pressure on the soil or earth with disturbances on the ground? Has there been any research regarding long term effects on the environment, wildlife & humans?
2) Direct Injection: As there would be no control of the injected material after disposal, are there any health concerns we need to be worried about, i.e.: cancerous health risks.
3) Rock Melting: With this method of melting of the rock, does this process affect the environment and will there be any pollution from the rock that will go into the air and ozone layer?
4) Sub-Seabed Disposal: Although doing this process and contamination would be very little. Was the thought of marine life taken into consideration? Also, the plankton and plants on the ocean floor, would they be affected first and die off, which in effect would affect the food chain?
5) Disposal at Sea: With this method was there a reason why it was stopped in the early 80’s. Also, why would it be thought of now?
6) Disposal in Ice Sheets: With global warming happening all over the world. The ice in the arctic is slowly becoming smaller; has this been brought into consideration? Also, I really don’t think disposal of Nuclear Waste in the Arctic is a very good idea due to the environment and humans.
7) Disposal in Space: Has there been any research done about this issue? What if there was any problems transporting the most toxic waste, i.e.. Failure to eject into space, problems storing the waste. Would any of the waste leak back to earth while transporting?

Gordon Edwards' Response to these questions (2005):

The questions posed are good and sensible ones. Unfortunately there are not equally good and sensible answers.

The questions straddle two quite different scientific domains: the physical sciences and the biomedical sciences. Although humans have made great and impressive strides in both of these scientific domains, we remain ignorant of many important aspects of the natural world, particularly on the biomedical side. That's why these questions are so hard to answer.

In particular, when one asks about "long term effects on the environment, wildlife and humans", or "health concerns we need to be worried about", or effects on "plankton and plants on the ocean floor", one is asking questions that transcend science. These are referred to as "trans-scientific" questions. Science can provide some information or insight that can be helpful in understanding what might happen, but is very poorly equipped to say exactly how or even whether such things might happen, and what the long-term consequences might be.

The predictive sciences are, for the most part, restricted to a few of the physical sciences, such as Physics, Chemistry, and the applied science of Engineering. These are the sciences that have traditionally dominated the nuclear industry, and continue to do so. In these fields, mathematical methods are so successful that they have come to play an enormously important role in predicting the outcomes of situations. Psychologically, the scientists in these fields come to place an exaggerated importance on mathematical calculations, using them to make predictions which are then treated with an extremely high degree of assurance. Some practitioners become rather arrogant in this regard, and the nuclear industry certainly has its share of them.

The percentage of scientists in the nuclear industry that come from biological or medical fields is minuscule. Prediction is much less certain in these latter disciplines, in which mathematics plays an important but greatly diminished role. In the biomedical sciences, predictions made on the basis of mathematical calculations must always be treated rather skeptically, because the biological systems (e.g. ecosystems) are often much more complex than the mathematical analysis is. For example, there is very little reliable scientific knowledge about the long-term reproductive effects of radioactive contamination on a large scale. Radiation exposure has been shown to damage eggs and sperm in all species that have been studied; this happens even at very low doses, and there is no evidence for a "safe dose" below which such damage does not occur. This microscopic damage to the reproductive cells can result in developmental damage (that is, birth defects) not only in the offspring of the generation directly exposed, but also in subsequent generations who may not be directly exposed, because of the transmission of defective genes and chromosomes through many generations of offspring.

Radiation exposure delivered directly to a fetus during pregnancy or incubation can also lead to developmental abnormalities (that is, birth defects) in the immature organism. The most significant of these abnormalities is brain damage. In animals, prenatal brain damage may be manifested by subsequent behavioural problems including partial or complete loss of nesting instincts and/or mating behaviour patterns. In humans, prenatal brain damage is generally manifested by a loss of intelligence (IQ) that is more or less proportional to the amount of prenatal radiation exposure to the unborn child. This "mental retardation" effect has been confirmed by the UN Scientific Commission on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR Committee. (BEIR stands for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.) However, there is insufficient scientific knowledge to integrate these and many other isolated bits of information into a comprehensive analysis of the progressive effects on species and ecosystems, which might occur if there is chronic exposure to radiation at levels significantly greater than the radiation levels experienced over the last several million years of evolution. Radiation exposure at chronic levels has also been shown to cause all kinds of cancers, and many kinds of blood diseases. In these cases also, independent scientific bodies have found no evidence to suggest that there is a "safe dose". It seems that every dose of radiation will cause some increase in cancer incidence if a sufficiently large population of people is exposed. Not everyone so exposed will get cancer, but those that do will be just as sick and just as dead if the cancer is a fatal one. As the radiation dose is diminished, the number of cancer victims will also diminish; but the risk of excess cancer will not reach zero until the radiation exposure also reaches zero.

In the nuclear industry, almost all of the effort has gone into the Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering aspects. The physical scientists who permeate the nuclear enterprise believe that by focusing their efforts almost exclusively on machinery and measurements, they can prevent radioactive poisons from ever reaching the world of living things, and therefore it will never be necessary to deal with the consequences because there won't be any. This effort has been so monolithic that there is virtually no meaningful discussion of the possible long-term effects on ecosystems of plants, animals, birds, micro-organisms, fish, crustaceans, insects, and humans.

Ironically, the industry's attempt to harness the powers of accurate prediction and total control -- powers that seem to be inherent in some physical sciences -- has been frustrated by the necessity to deal with other non-predictive aspects of the natural world. Chief among these is geology.

Geology is not primarily a predictive science. It is a descriptive science. Many branches of biology and medicine are also more descriptive than predictive in nature. For example, no one can predict accurately where the next earthquake or tsunami will strike, or how powerful it might be. No one can predict which rock formations will fail in the next million years and which ones will remain intact.

The fact that a rock formation has been intact for millions or even billions of years offers no proof that it will remain intact for a similarly long period of time in the future (although, of course, one can always hope!)

It appears that things which may seem inanimate In the laboratory, such as water and rock, behave more like living things when they occur in the real world as river systems and mountain ranges. The earth itself seems alive and therefore unpredictable, as attested by geysers, volcanoes, glaciers advancing and retreating over thousands of miles, and rivers cutting huge canyons through solid rock by a slow and steady process of erosion.

Thus the quandary : what to do with radioactive waste? Nuclear scientists (and others) would like to believe, and would like us to believe, that they can plan something so clever that nature -- the great re-cycler -- will be unable to recycle these poisons back into the environment of living things.
But there is a hitch. They cannot prove that their plan will work. It is beyond the powers of science to provide such a proof. It requires a kind of belief or faith that is, in itself, not scientific. For this reason, more than 30 years ago, a Nobel-Prize-winning physicist, Dr. Hannes Alfven, said this about the problem of radioactive waste disposal: "You cannot prove that a problem has been solved, simply by pointing to all the efforts that have been made to solve it." Nobel-Prize winning physicist Dr. Hannes Alfven, 1972, quoted in "Nuclear Energy and the Environment" (1976), UK Royal Commission on the Environment, Report #6

Similarly, when the California Energy Resources and Conservation Commission reported back to the California Legislature on the subject of radioactive waste disposal, the Chairman of the Commission said: "If everything worked perfectly as far as they are concerned, if every one of their ideas were correct, and we were able to proceed on a timely basis, waste disposal will not be demonstrated ... until sometime around 1987. "We, however, have a more fundamental problem. We think it probable that it will never be demonstrated. "Excessive optimism about the potential for safe disposal of nuclear wastes has caused backers of nuclear power to ignore scientific evidence pointing to its pitfalls. "That's the real crux of what we found -- that you have to weigh scientific evidence against essentially engineering euphoria." Commissioner Emilio Varanini , Chairman of the California Energy Commission. [quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Thursday January 12, 1978]

So, most of the research on radioactive wastes has centered on finding a physical containment scheme, which might offer the prospect of perfect or near-perfect containment over a very long period of time -- much longer than the span of recorded human history. The various options discussed by NWMO are just various ideas for getting rid of the stuff ("out of sight, out of mind") -- ideas that have been explored in more or less detail (often less rather than more) by nuclear scientists.

(1) Boreholes
Deep boreholes have been studied in Sweden, Finland, and Russia, as possible repositories for some kinds of radioactive waste -- but not usually for irradiated nuclear fuel. If this method were to be adapted for nuclear fuel waste, the boreholes would typically have a diameter of less than one meter, and they would be drilled several kilometers deep. Packages of irradiated nuclear fuel would then be stacked one on top of the other in the borehole, separated by layers of bentonite or cement.
It is hoped that the depth of the repository would provide adequate assurance that these radioactive poisons will not find their way back to the surface. However this assumption cannot be proven scientifically. Moreover, retrieval of the irradiated fuel would be extremely difficult if not impossible. There are many unanswered technical questions, such as the physical integrity of the waste packages under the high pressures and temperatures to which they would be subjected in the boreholes. It is unknown whether the combination of high temperature and high pressure could create some kind of geyser effect through which dissolved radioactive wastes might be returned to the surface. Or whether vertical migration under pressure might be followed by horizontal migration through subterranean fracture zones, eventually leading back to the surface or contaminating groundwater, As for possible long term adverse effects on the environment, wildlife and humans, such harmful effects have been studied only in a very abstract manner, using rather simplistic mathematical models.
While deep borehole emplacement is regarded by the industry as a possible idea for managing small quantities of radioactive waste, it is by no means sufficiently well developed to be considered as a management option for the very large quantities of irradiated nuclear fuel under consideration by NWMO. No country is currently pursuing this option.

(2) Deep Injection
Similar comments apply to direct injection, together with the fact that this method presumes that the wastes are in a liquid form. The only way irradiated nuclear fuel could end up in a liquid form is due to reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Reprocessing involves chopping the fuel bundles into small pieces, dissolving the pieces in hot nitric acid, chemically separating out the plutonium from the hundreds of other radioactive poisons (for re-use in reactors or in bombs), resulting in the creation of millions of gallons of highly corrosive high-level radioactive liquid waste. The reprocessing operation is itself a major threat to the environment.
Direct injection of these liquid wastes into underground rock strata would be problematic as liquids are much more mobile than solids. Since there is no manmade control once the material has been injected, the method would require a godlike knowledge of the subterranean geologic features, not only now, but also for thousands of years into the future. This idea is not being pursued by any country as a serious option, although the former USSR used it in a number of locations in the past. No other country has ever done so.

(3) Rock Melting
This bizarre idea involves placing the high-level radioactive waste in a concentrated form in an underground cavity or borehole, sealing it up, and allowing the heat generated by the radioactivity to build up to the point where it would literally melt the surrounding rock, dissolving the radioactive wastes in a growing (and glowing) sphere of molten material which would eventually cool down and crystallize, thus incorporating the radioactive material into the rock matrix.

A variant form of this idea would be to enclose the waste in containers that would not melt; then the molten rock would congeal and provide a tight and very strong protective shell around the radioactive waste in its containers. Research on this idea was carried out in the 1970s, and interest was briefly revived in Russia in the 1990s (where the idea was also explored of using an underground nuclear explosion to melt the rock around the waste material), but this idea is not currently being investigated as part of the national program of any country. There have been no practical demonstrations that rock melting would be feasible, safe, or economically viable. With such heat goes much energy and pressure, opening the possibility for some pretty powerful steam explosions.

(4) Sub-Seabed Disposal
This is a kind of "advanced dumping" option. It has often been suggested that the oceans are so vast that nuclear waste could be safely disposed of at sea; the radioactive poisons would become so diluted and so dispersed, reaching such a low level of concentration, that the danger would become negligible. This idea dramatizes the difference between physical sciences and biological sciences. In a non-living environment, material that is dissolved in water spreads out uniformly in all directions, resulting in very low concentrations at any one place. However, living organisms have the ability to seek out and concentrate dilute materials (nutrients) into their bodies. Thus biological organisms can often reverse expectations that are based on the study of non-living systems. This is the principle behind bio-accumulation and bio-magnification. Many radioactive materials that enter the food chain can be re-concentrated by factors of thousands or hundreds of thousands as they work their way up the food chain. Think of mercury concentrations in fish, or DDT concentrations in birds of prey such as eagles or falcons. Thus we cannot predict the end result of a "dilute and disperse" approach, and no nation is pursuing this idea. It is important to remember that there are literally hundreds of different radioactive materials in irradiated nuclear fuel, and these materials behave exactly the same as their non-radioactive cousins. Thus radioactive iodine behaves just the same way as non-radioactive iodine -- it goes straight to the thyroid gland. Once there however, the radioactivity damages the thyroid; it can cause thyroid disorders which impair the growth, well-being, or even the intelligence of a child, as well as causing tumors (both cancerous and non-cancerous).
Other radioactive materials mimic non-radioactive materials. Our digestive system cannot tell the difference between potassium and cesium, so radioactive cesium is stored in our muscle tissues when it gets into our food supply. Similarly, radioactive strontium is stored in our bones, teeth, and mother's milk, because our body cannot tell the difference between it and non-radioactive calcium. In short, our bodies have not evolved in a way that will allow our digestive systems to detect or reject radioactive materials in our food; the same can be said for all other living things, as far as we can tell. Sub-seabed disposal would involve placing the wastes in containers below the seabed, so that it will take a long time (hopefully thousands of years) for the containers to disintegrate and the waste materials to be dissolved in the ocean water. Thus it is a "dilute and disperse" option with a time delay built in. Sub-seabed disposal was investigated extensively in the 1980's by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). Canada participated in this work, along with Japan, USA, UK, and other countries. This research was ended in the 1990s when it became clear that there would always be intense political opposition internationally to such an option.

(5) Disposal at Sea
Thirty years ago, Britain and some other countries were in the habit of dumping barrels of radioactive waste (not irradiated nuclear fuel!) into the ocean directly off the decks of ships at sea. This practice was protested by Greenpeace, who called world attention to the situation by paddling rubber boats right up to the ships that were dumping barrels of radioactive waste into the ocean. As a result of the ensuing international publicity, and due to the initiative of nations like Spain that depend heavily on ocean fisheries, an international convention came into force outlawing the deliberate dumping of radioactive wastes into the sea. Another convention was adopted later that would specifically prevent sub-seabed disposal.

(6) Disposal in Ice Sheets
It was long ago suggested that nuclear waste could be disposed of in Antarctica by placing the waste on an ice sheet and letting it just melt its way down deeper and deeper into the ground. Since Antarctica is a continent, it was assumed that this would be a safe way of getting the wastes out of sight, out of mind, and out of harm's way. It was later discovered that there are pockets of brine below the surface ice. When the radioactive wastes hit the salty water there would be steam produced, rapid corrosion due to the salt, and possible dispersal of radioactive waste materials into the atmosphere and hence into the ocean by a geyser-like effect. In a different context, nuclear scientists have always been fond of the idea of burying radioactive wastes in salt formations on land, because salt is soluble in water and therefore the very existence of the salt formation argues that there is no significant circulating groundwater. Upon drilling into a salt formation in Carlsbad, New Mexico, researchers struck a pocket of pressurized brine which sent a geyser up through the surface -- just like striking oil for the first time! It was subsequently discovered that there are always pockets of brine in salt formations, and that the heat given off by the radioactive waste actually forces these brine pockets to migrate towards the waste, where they would eventually arrive and create steam and attack the waste containers with corrosive hot brine.

(7) Disposal in Space
It would be a great expense to launch nuclear waste into space (which requires huge 70-ton shipping containers each equipped with its own cooling system). There are also the dangers associated with surface transportation of high-level radioactive waste over large distances. But worst of all is the record of rockets that have exploded on the launch pad or in the atmosphere; it is quite appalling. Think of the Space Shuttle that exploded over Florida, killing all those on board. Such an accident would disperse the radioactive waste into the environment in the worst possible way. No country is seriously pursuing this option.

Conclusion (2011)

As the NWMO makes clear in discussing these options, none of them is considered to be an acceptable long-term “solution” to the problem of keeping these dangerous high level nuclear wastes out of the environment of living things forever. Likewise, there is no scientific way to prove that geological storage is going to be permanently safe either. The word “disposal” has no scientific definition. The human race has never successfully disposed of anything. Many people believe that nuclear power should be phased out in order to stop producing any more of these indestructible radiotoxic materials. Nuclear wastes that already exist should be carefully guarded and monitored. It is irresponsible to place these wastes beyond human control in the absence of a genuine proven solution.

Council of Canadians RESOLUTION against STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE - Saskatchewan Chapters - 2011

(See Premier Wall's Letter below - Mar. 12.12 re: Resolution)

Moose Jaw Chapter, Prince Albert Chapter, Quill Plains Chapter and Regina Chapter, Council of Canadians

WHEREAS the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), comprising members of the nuclear industry, is aggressively searching for a ‘willing community’ to become the long-term storage site of high level nuclear fuel waste from Canadian nuclear power plants, with the potential to import such material from other countries in the future; and

WHEREAS radioactive wastes created by nuclear power plants are among the most toxic and long-lived on the planet, presenting unacceptable risks and costs for this and many future generations; and

WHEREAS the transportation by trains or trucks of this waste presents grave and unacceptable risks to all life in or near cities, towns, schools, hospitals, farms and natural areas along the entire route of passage; and

WHEREAS centralized storage is being promoted in part so that nuclear wastes are retrievable for future reprocessing of plutonium, creating even more dangerous waste and, in the case of stockpiling plutonium, increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation; and
　　
WHEREAS communities facing economic hardships should not be pressured or bribed to accept a nuclear storage site in or near their watersheds or ecosystems; and

WHEREAS nuclear wastes should be managed in the jurisdictions that create them and upgraded, secure storage on-site or near reactors should be managed with local, arms length democratic control; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: that the Council of Canadians reject the proposition being pursued by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to secure a centralized site for high level nuclear waste disposal anywhere in Canada.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of Canadians pressure all provincial governments and the federal government to implement an immediate prohibition on the transportation or importation of high level radioactive nuclear waste anywhere in Canada, and to store nuclear waste where it is used.

Approved at the Board of Directors Meeting
February 5, 2012, Ottawa ON

= = = = = =

LETTER FROM PREMIER BRAD WALL TYPED FROM THE ORIGINAL BY E. Hughes, MARCH 19, 2012

March 12, 2012


Maude Barlow
National Chairperson
The Council of Canadians
700 – 170 Laurier Avenue W
OTTAWA ON K1P 5V5

Dear Ms. Barlow:

Thank you for your letter of February 28, 2012, regarding the storage of used nuclear fuels in Saskatchewan.

In March 2009, the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) provided recommendations to government for capturing growth opportunities across the uranium value chain, including the management of used nuclear fuel. In our government's response to the UDP report, we expressed that we have no intention of becoming a project developer of a nuclear waste management facility. A full copy of the UDP report and our government's response is available on the Government of Saskatchewan website at: http://www.er.gov.sk.ca/uranium-development .

While our government respects the fact that certain communities are exploring the possibility of such development, it is not our impression that there exists broad-based provincial support, and, as your letter notes, therefore such a repository is not a priority for our government.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

“Original signed by”

Brad Wall
Premier

pcu-regina

Pinehouse Lake moves to Step 3 in NWMO process

http://www.townoflaronge.ca/TheNorthern ... php?id=961

by Valerie G. Barnes-Connell April 9, 2012

The Settlement of Pinehouse Lake decided to move to Step 3 in the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) Adaptive Phased Management project, the creation and development and construction of a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) for the long-term management spent nuclear waste.

The decision was made during a municipal meeting held Monday, March 19 and the motion was passed at their Council meeting on Thursday, March 29, said Mike Natomagan, mayor of Pinehouse Lake, in an interview with The Northerner.

The meeting was held to “talk about the NWMO and why we are going to Step 3.”

Although there is opposition in the community, Natomagan said, “There are reasons why we want to learn more. If we can use that benefit to find out more about our internal needs.”

There are concerns that even if the community says no to the project in the future it will still be built in the community, but Natomagan said, that is not the case.

The community is looking to use the benefits of the process to “move on” as part of a process to look to a healthier and more economically sound future, because poverty and welfare are not the answers for the community’s future, Natomagan said.

“The status quo ain’t good enough here … welfare is not always going to be here and there’s no hope in welfare.” The process is ongoing, as the community has studied such documents as the Eric Howe study on the educational gaps between Aboriginal people and mainstream society in the north. The Health Indicator Report is also another document under perusal in the Pinehouse Lake process. “There is gaps there and we need to address it.” Concerns for the sustainable future of the community include health, education and housing, Natomagan said. “The poverty issue, that’s the bottom line. Kids need a better opportunity than this. Statistics show 51 per cent of kids live in poverty and for us locally, people in the community, you think they read books to their kids? No, they’re more worried about how do I get the next meal.”

Inviting industry is one of the solutions he sees as part of the solution. “We need industry in the north for Aboriginal people to have hope.”

The move to Step 3 involves a deeper desktop-type study of the area.

The project is part of the community’s exploration into the future, not only for Pinehouse Lake, but the whole north.

Approximately 44 people attended the meeting to discuss the decision.

Mike Krizanc, communications manager for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) outlined information on the move from Step 2 to Step 3 in an interview with The Northerner when Creighton and English River First Nation decide to move to Step 3. The following includes information provided in that interview.

Step 3 is “a continuation of Step 2” which has two phases.

The first phase of Step 3 includes “more socio-economic studies to assess the potential income of the repository on the community in terms of

Valerie G. Barnes-Connell

WHY IS PREMIER WALL HEDGING ON A NUCLEAR WASTE BAN?

BY Jim Harding For publishing in R-Town News on June 1, 2012


On May 14, 2012 the northern-based Committee for Future Generations (CFG) delivered a petition of 12,000 names calling for the province to legislate a ban on nuclear wastes. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry-run Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) continues to target three northern communities as prospective sites for millions of highly toxic, ever-lasting spent fuel bundles from Ontario’s 20 nuclear plants.

Last summer, members of the newly-formed Committee walked 800 km from one such targeted community, Pinehouse, to Regina to raise awareness of NWMO’s agenda. The previous April the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan presented a petition of 5,000 names calling for a nuclear waste ban, after which Premier Wall gave an ambiguous response. What was he going to say this time, in the face of more than twice the names?

JAPANESE CONNECTION

Several people spoke at the rally held outside the Legislature prior to presenting the petition. I spoke about the “Japanese connection”. The previous week Japan had shut down the last of its 58 nuclear plants. The probable phase-out of nuclear power in Japan is no small thing, for after the US and France, Japan is the third largest producer. Prior to the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown, Japan was to expand its nuclear fleet to produce 50% of its electricity, requiring 20 new plants. Saskatoon-based Cameco looked forward to this profitable, new uranium market.

However, Fukushima’s disaster fundamentally altered public opinion. Previously, 60% of the public had passively supported nuclear expansion; afterwards, 80% supported a nuclear phase-out, and you can hardly blame them. In the first three months after the meltdown there had already been 170 times the radioactivity that had been released in 1945 when the A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. From Hiroshima to Fukushima, Japan has been the world’s greatest victim of the nuclear threat.

The international media hasn’t kept up, as radiation continues to spew from the damaged reactors. And there remains concern that the spent fuel stored atop damaged reactor # 4 could endure a loss-of-coolant accident, leading to massive plutonium contamination. It’s hard for Saskatchewan people living on the vast prairies to imagine the density and scale of things in Japan. Fukushima is the same distance from the 19 million inhabitants of Tokyo as Brad Wall’s Swift Current riding is from the Regina Legislature. Building these nuclear plants on an island, on an earthquake fault line, was foolhardy from the start.

TEPCO AND HITATCHI

Japan’s shift to renewables has direct implications for the uranium industry here. One of the first contracts signed when the Blakeney NDP expanded uranium mining at Cluff Lake in the late 1970s was with Japan. Since then, Japan has been a main customer of Cameco. Tepco, the Japanese utility operating the damaged Fukushima plants, is Cameco’s partner in the huge underground Cigar Lake mine. Its uranium had been destined for a nuclear power “boom” in Japan which will never materialize. Meanwhile, much of the radioactivity that will go on threatening air, water and food across SE Asia comes from uranium fuel from Saskatchewan.

Premier Wall’s government seems unmoved by the moral and ecological inter-connections. While Japan considers a nuclear phase-out, the GE-Hitatchi consortium which built the flawed Fukushima plants and was to build the new ones, looks for opportunities abroad. And Wall’s government remains open to the nuclear business. It has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with GE-Hitatchi to do research at the University of Saskatchewan on small nuclear reactors for the tarsands and on nuclear fuels involving “recycling” of nuclear wastes.

This MOU follows on the heels of the industry-dominated Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) which recommended that Saskatchewan embrace nuclear power and support NWMO’s plan for locating a nuclear dump. In spite of the government’s own public consultations showing that over 80% oppose this plan, the Wall government carries on. The NWMO continues to penetrate the north with erroneous promises that employment from a nuclear dump will solve the crisis of youth suicide, while GE-Hitachi penetrates higher education with manipulative promises that their research will benefit nuclear medicine.

PRESENTING PETITIONS

NDP Environment Critic and MLA from Saskatoon-Nutana, Cathy Sproule presented the petition. She read out all the Saskatchewan communities where those signing resided. Watching from the gallery, I expected a fairly short list, perhaps mostly along the route of last summer’s walk, until I realized she had already named several communities and was still on “A” in the alphabet. Some government MLAs heckled, but Sproule persisted reading out the names at a steady pace. It became hypnotic! The compelling list of over 250 Saskatchewan communities included many from which Wall’s MLAs were elected. I noticed that as the list of communities got longer and longer, Sask Party heckling subsided.

I hadn’t been to the Legislature for a while so wasn’t prepared for the immature antics of some government MLA’s. The Sask Party MLA for Meadow Lake, Jeremy Harrison, was particularly disrespectful and obnoxious; hardly a good example, from the Government’s own House Leader, for the visitors filling the galleries. Unfortunately Premier Wall exited the Legislature while the petition was being presented so he never heard the huge cross-section of Saskatchewan communities involved in the campaign for a nuclear waste ban.

MEETING THE MINISTER

Later, members of the Committee and Coalition met with the Minister of the Environment, Dustin Duncan, MLA from Weyburn-Big Muddy. At first I wondered whether I was still in the province which had been so stridently pro-nuclear over the decades. Minister Duncan was candid that he didn’t know much about the nuclear fuel system, but to his credit, he admitted that the enriching process was used for nuclear weapons as well as nuclear power. However, he seemed unaware of northern concerns about uranium tailings, and that no baseline health study had ever been done to scientifically assess the impact of uranium mining on human health. He seemed totally unaware of the history of environmental reviews on nuclear wastes, or of the nature of the risks from nuclear wastes being stored underground, in perpetuity.

Duncan was aware of his government’s UDP, though he didn’t acknowledge that public consultations had shown overwhelming opposition to transporting nuclear wastes into the province. He listened but didn’t say anything at all about the government’s plans. We heard nothing from him about environmental concerns about bringing nuclear wastes to Saskatchewan. Perhaps it didn’t matter that he seemed so innocently unaware of this vital matter, for, since then, the Cabinet has been re-shuffled. Duncan has moved on to Health and people will now have to talk to Environment Minister Ken Cheveldayoff, who, based on earlier statements, remains supportive of the nuclear industry.

WALL OF RHETORIC

The Leader Post reported that Premier Wall admitted “I don’t think there’s an interest (in a nuclear dump) on the part of the Saskatchewan people”. He’s got that right! He also said “the government isn’t interested in welcoming a storage site either”. This was encouraging but then he said “the province isn’t considering legislation to ban nuclear wastes”.

Why not? Do we live in a province governed with smoke and mirrors? In spite of the Fukushima catastrophe and Saskatchewan’s complicity in this, and in spite of the public’s opposition to the UDP, Wall forges ahead with his nuclear agenda. When even more petitions are delivered from across the whole province, Wall continues mincing his words so as to say nothing.

Why won’t Wall follow the lead of Manitoba and Quebec and ban nuclear wastes here? Is he leaving the door open for nuclear wastes to be transported here from Ontario? Perhaps he and Prime Minister Harper have already had such discussions. I am starting to think that the Premier is hiding something behind his wall of rhetoric.

- - - -

Other articles at:

http://jimharding.brinkster.net

LISTEN: Gordon Edwards - Radio Interview on High Level Nuclear Waste in Ontario

----- Original Message -----
From: Elaine Hughes
To: SK Premier Wall
Cc: SK Green Leader - Lau, Victor ; SK Watershed Auth. ; SK NDP Caucus ; SK Party Caucus ; Breitkreuz, G. MP ; ROOT, John-UofS
Bcc: Just for NUKES; Just for POLITICS; Just for FRIENDS
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 11:41 AM
Subject: LISTEN: Gordon Edwards - Radio Interview on High Level Nuclear Waste in Ontario

Have you listened to this interview yet, Premier Wall?

You don't want to miss it . . . 30 minutes well spent - it is EXCELLENT!!!

Helps you and your government understand why we don't want nuclear waste in Saskatchewan, either - Just say NO!

Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK

= = = = =


----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Edwards
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 2:35 PM
Subject: Gordon Edwards - Radio Interview on High Level Nuclear Waste in Ontario

This radio interview is about 30 minutes in duration.
It was broadcast on August 30 2012 at 10:05 am.

http://ccnr.org/Talk_DGR_12_08_30.mp3

--------------------
Dr. Edwards:


Thanks Dr. Edwards for agreeing to be on The Talk Show tomorrow morning (10:05 A.M eastern)

You can access our website at www.cknxam920.ca

As discussed you can listen live or download our interview by clicking on "Talk Show" and following the links.

If you encounter any problems please let me know.

Also should you need to reach me at any time prior to the interview my contact info is listed below.

Looking forward to our chat.

Regards:

Bryan Allen
Host/Co-Producer
THE TALK SHOW
CKNX-AM920
email: ballen@cknxradio.com
www.cknxam920.ca

PAUL: Letter to ERFN Chief Alfred Dawatsare

[ http://committeeforfuturegenerations.wordpress.com/ ]

Posted on November 26, 2012 by 7000generations

November 26, 2012.

Chief Alfred Dawatsare,

I am writing this letter for the main purpose of expressing my opinion about ionizing radiation from nuclear materials which the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is proposing to bring into Northern Saskatchewan. These are highly radio toxic and when working with such materials one has to be protected by protective clothing and must have a counter. These are used to gauge the amount of radioactive materials is in the environment and to minimize exposure. With this in mind, it is important to know rather quantitatively what amount of radiation is normal; normal for Northern Saskatchewan’s water and air is almost zero. A nuclear waste dump will increase this amount at anytime. This means that no one knows when, but it will eventually be released into the environment. Then it will enter the food chain since every living thing requires water.

I have looked into most of the literature on what can happen if such a project is undertaken and it appears that based on the mathematical model and computer simulation being used, they really don’t know. Think of this as a meteorologist trying to predict the weather in the next couple of days. He usually does so in terms of probabilities. In the case, of nuclear waste storage we are trying to predict for the next millions years. The equations are very complicated and the variables are very high. This means the risk is very high. The amount of radiation in these materials is very high. So chances of it getting into the environment very high.

I will tell you that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s only mandate is to rid of these materials with no regard to aboriginal rights and environmental laws. They disguise themselves as being independent from industry and government but their actions say otherwise. Their presentations are an attempt to convince people that this is a safe and needed. The tactics used is very similar to the time when governments convinced people that nuclear weapons were needed.

Today, many have parted from the old ways of thinking, and now see the environment as being different from us; it is treated like something away from us. But in the Dene way, we know the environment is part of us and we are part of it. We need it to live. Seeing the environment as a commodity is done by people of capitalistic upbringing. We all know that such ideas are not beneficial for people in poverty. Patuanak has many poor people and we know they want a purpose and be appreciated, if this means work they so be it. But money is never a good motivator for having good people, in fact it does the opposite.

Genocide is the word that come to mind when this form of oppression is applied. The evil of genocide is usually presented in a good way. They seem like they want to help you. This is the nature of oppression and suffering. The deception is that this money will be helpful but this is not true. Think of the way treaties have given us money. The first indication of danger is the promise of prosperity and wealth. You will know about this as persons with power over reserves are given high salary for various reasons. The money from the nuclear industry will be only for the people in power never for the people.

More importantly, it will not matter if the money is there. The love of going out on the land or boating into the land will be very dangerous. There will be borders placed around the storage areas yet the radioactive materials can not see these man-made borders. You see that you cannot put a border to stop rivers from flowing or moose from walking around. Our traditional foods and life style is in real danger of disappearance. Once it is gone there is no amount of money that will bring it back. This has happened before with the church and residential schools. We must learn from this. This is what people do if they don’t like something they will not do it again. We don’t have to suffer again.

Please make the choice where you do it for all the people of the reserve and the beautiful ways. We have to be proud that we fought this force bent on destroying anything that is beautiful. The right choice is to fight them and find more creative ways to make people have purpose to live. Living to make money is not our ways. It is for family and for continuing our way of life.

Regards,

Percy Paul

QUOTE: “To tell you the truth, I represent 74 communities, and the consistent message out there is the majority of them don’t agree with nuclear waste management and the safety of it — and I speak on behalf of them,” - FSIN Vice Chief Bobby Cameron

- - - -

QUOTE: "“I do not stand with this nuclear waste and came here today to get answers to bring to the people, because we need to protect the earth,” she said through tears. “We need to protect the water. It is very important that people know what’s coming if they let this happen and they don’t stand up to do something about it now.
“I encourage everybody to learn as much as they can and put this to a stop.” - Ashley Marie Wilson, Idle No More Prince Albert organizer
_____________

Long-term nuclear waste repository ‘not worth it’: FSIN vice chief

[ http://www.paherald.sk.ca/Local/News/20 ... ce-chief/1]

Pat Patton, director of aboriginal relations for the NWMO, holds an empty nuclear fuel bundle at an information session regarding nuclear waste management at the Prince Albert Inn on Friday. (PHOTO)

Published on February 22, 2013 Alex Di Pietro

alex.dipietro@paherald.sk.ca

Aboriginal leaders and community members met with representatives from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) for a session Friday at the Prince Albert Inn to learn more about a plan to potentially store nuclear waste in northern Saskatchewan.

Sessions were held in Saskatoon and Regina earlier this week to discuss the same topic. The NWMO provided the FSIN with $1 million over three years to fund the nuclear waste sessions.

While Friday’s session was open to First Nations people but closed to the media, participants spoke with the Daily Herald during a break in the day’s agenda.

Bobby Cameron, vice chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN), said the purpose of the meetings has always been the same.

“That’s to inform and educate our First Nations people on nuclear waste management, the storage and transportation,” he said. “We have nothing to hide. We invite our First Nation folks to come out and raise their concerns.”

Twenty-one communities in Saskatchewan and Ontario have expressed interest in accepting the NWMO’s plan to build a nuclear waste repository, with those in Saskatchewan currently in the first phase of step three — an 18-month to two-year process.

Cameron clarified that there are far more communities in Ontario that are interested, with only three out of the 21 being in Saskatchewan.

“As I said in my opening comments this morning, there are far more communities interested in Ontario than there are in Saskatchewan. It’s not set in stone that waste is going to be stored here in Saskatchewan,” Cameron added.

The NWMO is in the midst of searching for a site to store millions of used nuclear fuel bundles, which are currently being stored on an interim basis at various facilities around the country.

While Pinehouse, Creighton and English River First Nation are being considered, there has been opposition shown toward the proposal by residents of those communities.

Citing environmental concerns, Cameron said he is aware of the opposition that exists.

“To tell you the truth, I represent 74 communities, and the consistent message out there is the majority of them don’t agree with nuclear waste management and the safety of it — and I speak on behalf of them,” he said.

Used nuclear fuel is created from the generation of electricity in nuclear power plants. One nuclear fuel bundle, which is roughly the shape and size of a fireplace log, can power up to 100 homes a year.

While Cameron conceded that the deep geological repository would bring jobs, he said one must assess the pros and cons of the plan.

“The pros being the jobs, the revenue it’s going to generate and the cons being nothing’s more important than our land (and) nothing is more important than our water,” Cameron said.

“In 40 or 50 years, many of us are going to be dead,” Cameron continued, noting that after speaking to aboriginal communities, the bottom line is that it isn’t worth it.

“Do we want to leave jobs and money or do we want to have a nice clean healthy environment, so our kids can enjoy it every day?” he asked rhetorically.

Cameron shared more of his perspective on the possible environmental effects of a long-term repository.

“You look at the uranium mining here in northern Saskatchewan — the tailing ponds and the pollution that it’s causing our lakes up in the north,” he said. “It’s to a point now where some of our people can’t even eat the fish in some of those lakes up there. The potential is there for sure.”

MORE:

[ http://www.paherald.sk.ca/Local/News/20 ... ce-chief/1 ]