Stop the Hogs!

LISTEN: CKUW Radio (Winnipeg) program re the encroachment of the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan

. . . Excellent!

(***NOTE: to avoid the first (noisy) portion of this podcast, you may want to slide the timer to the 6:45 minute mark . . . . where the conversation actually begins!)

Listen to the podcast of CKUW's "Global Research News Hour" for Friday, November 1, which includes news director Michael Welch's interviews with D'Arcy Hande (Saskatoon) and Candyce Paul (English River First Nation) regarding the encroachment of the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan.

D'Arcy Hande (beginning at 6:45 mins.) speaks about the growing inordinate influence of Cameco (uranium mining) corporation at the University of Saskatchewan and among northern communities in the province, referencing two recent articles he has written for BRIARPATCH magazine.

Candyce Paul (beginning at 31:00 mins.) explains the dire impact the uranium mining industry continues to have on nearby indigenous communities and the efforts of Committee for Future Generations to stop plans to establish a nuclear waste repository in northern Saskatchewan.

U of S survey reveals Saskatchewan attitudes towards nuclear issues

[ http://www.edwards.usask.ca/news/main/_ ... ssues.aspx ]

Release Date : May 12, 2014

Related website : [ http://words.usask.ca/news/2014/05/12/10078/ ]

Saskatchewan residents are generally supportive of nuclear research and technology, including uranium mining and nuclear power, according to results from The Saskatchewan Nuclear Attitudes Study released by the Nuclear Policy Research Initiative (NPRI) at the University of Saskatchewan (U of S).

“Nuclear power and nuclear technology is a controversial topic and we wanted to survey Saskatchewan residents to gain a better understanding of their attitudes related to the nuclear sector,” said researcher Jana Fried, a postdoctoral fellow with the U of S Social Sciences Research Laboratory (SSRL). “What we found out is that attitudes toward nuclear are generally positive but also nuanced, with Saskatchewan people seeing both positive and negative aspects.”

“Nuclear development is ultimately an issue of public policy,” said Scott Bell, professor in the Department of Geography and Planning. “We hope the results of this study will inform public discussion and debate.”

The NPRI team consists of Fried and Bell, along with Loleen Berdahl, associate professor in the Department of Political Studies and Maureen Bourassa, assistant professor of marketing in the Edwards School of Business.

The study results are being presented as four policy briefs. The findings released today are part of the first two policy briefs: an overview of attitudes related to the nuclear energy sector, and a summary of attitudes related to nuclear medicine, uranium mining and nuclear waste management. An additional two briefs, one on people’s values and knowledge related to nuclear issues, and another on the perception of trust in decision makers related to nuclear development, will be released Wednesday, May 14.

The study’s findings include:

Nuclear power: Half of all respondents reported having a positive impression of nuclear power, with two thirds of respondents saying that they would support Saskatchewan using nuclear power in the future.

Safety of nuclear power: Responses were evenly divided on nuclear power being safe or harmful to human health, with 44 percent indicating that nuclear power was safe and 43 percent saying that nuclear power is hazardous.

Uranium mining: 77 percent support continued uranium mining in Saskatchewan.

Nuclear waste management: 56 percent opposed nuclear waste storage in the province, and respondents showed even greater opposition – 70 percent – to the idea of nuclear waste being stored near their own community.

Nuclear medicine: 70 percent of respondents have a positive impression of nuclear medicine, with 80 percent supporting continued funding of nuclear medicine research in the province.

The Saskatchewan Nuclear Attitudes Study was one of the first projects funded by the Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation in January 2013. The survey on which it is based was conducted by the Survey and Group Analysis Laboratory (SGAL), located within the U of S Social Science Research Laboratories, between September 27 and October 11, 2013. The survey consisted of a 15 minute telephone survey of randomly-selected 1,355 Saskatchewan residents over the age of 18 from across the province. The results are considered to represent the population of Saskatchewan, with results being accurate plus or minus 2.66 percent, 19 times out of 20. In some cases results were tabulated according to Saskatchewan’s census districts, providing insight into how attitudes vary across the province. -30-

For editors and producers: Summaries of the first two briefs are attached. They and the full study briefs are available at the NPRI website at [ http://ssrl.usask.ca/npri ].

The researchers are also available for interviews through the contacts below.

Contact:

Jennifer Thoma
Media Relations Specialist
University of Saskatchewan Marketing and Communications Team
306-966-1851

Michael Robin
Research Communications Specialist
University of Saskatchewan
306-966-1425
michael.robin@usask.ca

Matthew Dalzell
Communications Officer
Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation
306-966-3379 C: 306-280-6245

matthew.dalzell@usask.ca

A Star Phoenix article featuring this study was also published at
[ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/ ... story.html ]

McMURTRY: Nuclear energy attitudes mixed in Sask.

[ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Nucl ... story.html ]

By Alyssa McMurtry, The StarPhoenix May 13, 2014

Half of Saskatchewan survey respondents said they have positive impressions of nuclear power and two-thirds would support the province using nuclear power in the future, according to results from a recent study out of the University of Saskatchewan.

The study, funded by the Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation, aimed to generate public discussion and debate around nuclear issues. It is the largest survey conducted on attitudes in Saskatchewan about nuclear energy to date.

“I thought the results were interesting because I was surprised how nuanced the responses were. A lot of people saw positives and negatives; it’s not a clear cut issue for people,” said Jana Fried, one of the four researchers on the project.

Men were more likely than women to support future nuclear power generation, and Aboriginal respondents were the most likely to report opposition.

D’Arcy Hande, a freelance writer who has written about nuclear issues, said those results didn’t surprise him after looking at the consultation processes for storing nuclear waste in Pinehouse, Creighton and English River.

“Aboriginals don’t trust the uranium and nuclear industry. If you soften up public opinion in the south it’s going to be the aboriginals in the north that will bear the consequences,” he said.

Currently, Creighton is the only place in Saskatchewan being considered as a location for nuclear waste storage, but Hande said the prospects that it will happen are low.

SaskPower officials say there are no plans to implement nuclear power, as the utility will have sufficient energy until at least 2020. A large scale nuclear reactor has been ruled out, but SaskPower is looking at small modular reactors.

MORE:

[ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Nucl ... story.html ]

SHEARER: Nuclear Deal

[ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/toda ... story.html ]

By Craig Shearer, Macrorie, SK The Starphoenix May 26, 2014

QUOTE: “Your purchase is also guaranteed to make us a profit. Some of that profit will go into our gravesite tree-planting program that was created so that not a single gravesite of future victims of nuclear fallout cancers will be without a new fresh, clean, green tree generously planted by our foundation.”

Re: Nuclear energy attitudes mixed in Sask. (SP, May 13):
[ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Nucl ... story.html ]

Have we got a deal for you! Buy a box of our new brand of pro-nuclear propaganda Clean Green breakfast cereal and get the radioactive milk for free.

This amazing new cereal will have you glowing in the dark with your very first bowl.

Eat as much as you want, swallow everything, don't ask questions. Relax and let us do the talking.

We will take care of you. We know you are hungry for an energy boost and our new cereal will do that for you in a big bang way! Let us print the facts.

Every kernel in our bowl of our cereal is enriched with a yellowcake frosting. That will add a zestful zing to the start of your day and as a bonus our brand of zing will overflow for generations to come!

Let us feed you a wholesome organically mined meltdown of all the nutrition you will need and leave you with a clean environment and a green fresh-cut lawn that leads you right down our garden path. If that is not enough we have added generous portions of the newest vitamins X and RAY and the latest trend in minerals UO2 to make your breakfast cereal look and taste just like we want it to.

MORE:

[ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/toda ... story.html ]

DEWAR: Baby-sitting Nuclear Power in Saskatchewan?

[ http://ionizingradiationandyou.blogspot.ca/ ]

by Dr. Dale Dewar May 26, 2014

The recent burst of opinion poles on the topic of nuclear power are merely advertising tools for the nuclear industry. Saskatchewan residents soundly defeated the Uranium Development Partnership in 2009 with a mere 12% supporting the nuclear power option. (See page 105 of The Future of Uranium Public Consultation Process (2009)).
[ http://economy.gov.sk.ca/uranium-development ]

Why is this happening now?

The uranium market is flat and the forecast is for flatter. Only the emerging nations of India and China – still locked in the industrial pollution of London in the early 20th century - have planned new builds while the more developed nations, United States, Europe and even Eastern Canada are cutting back.

Why fall out of love with nuclear power? Maybe because it is a financial disaster – no nuclear power plant (NPP) has ever been built on time or remotely close to budget, maybe it's because nuclear power plants can't get liability insurance (if they have an accident, the public pays), maybe it's because no one knows what to do with the waste (deep geological repositories, otherwise known as “dumps,” leak, for eg this year at Carlsbad in the US) but maybe the real reason that people fall out of love with nuclear power is because it is an entirely unforgiving technology. The fuel, once used, is highly radioactive, essentially forever.

A nuclear power plant is very needy. Here's only two needs:

1. Electrical Needs

A nuclear power plant (NPP) has to be in a grid with a steady-state base load mode; it cannot respond quickly to changes in demand. Hence, they are usually situated close to large industrial or urban customers that have a consistent need for electrical energy from the grid. For a province like Saskatchewan where the population is relatively sparse and widely distributed, the current grid would have to be entirely re-designed.

NPP are also recipients of electricity, requiring electrical power for start-up, for ventilation, for cooling systems and for emergency procedures. The watchdog regulatory body for nuclear power, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requires that the NPP itself have two completely separate electrical systems. Thus, the province would still require a separate source of electricity for the NPP and its customers when the NPP is shut down for routine maintenance.

2. Water Needs:

Water is used as a coolant in all steam-cycle power plants - coal, gas and nuclear - but only in a NPP does its absence constitute an emergency. IAEA regulations require NNPs to be sited next to bodies of water. The source is crucial - during the heat wave in France in 2007, seventeen reactors had to reduce electrical production or shut down entirely when they were unable to obtain cool enough water.

Besides the need for water that is cold, nuclear reactors require an enormous amount of it. A typical, one-thousand-megawatt, pressurized water reactor sucks in seventy-six thousand litres of water per minute for cooling. Twenty percent of it is returned to the river or lake; the rest is either recovered or blown off in the cooling towers.

In addition to an operating supply of water, IAEA regulations require a nuclear power plant to have an emergency supply of water which can come from a river or lake or some other dedicated supply that can be delivered at the rate of 110,000 litres per minute. For a NPP in a potential drought area such as Saskatchewan, a dam would need to be built to have a secured supply.

NPPs have cooling ponds for “spent” fuel – rods of extremely radioactive broken bits of uranium and plutonium atoms. The Olympic-sized swimming pools must be kept filled with constantly circulating water. Water lost through evaporation must be replaced.

What about staving off climate change?

Nuclear power plants produce only electricity, and only about 12 per cent of the world’s electricity which is less than 2 per cent of the world’s total energy use. They are only “green” when operating at full capacity – which they usually do not – and their operational “greenness” does not include the petroleum dependent mining, refining and enriching of uranium, its transportation, manufacture of the fuel rods, care of the waste and decommissioning.

Unforgiving? A nuclear power plant can never be fully “stopped” - the fuel rods whether partially used or “spent” must be cared for essentially forever.