Petition – Say no to nuclear waste in New Brunswick

Open up nuclear waste debate

By David Thompson, Saint John

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is made up of the companies and utilities who own, create and store nuclear spent fuel waste at their reactor sites in Canada. It was mandated to site and build a central, permanent, long-term underground waste storage facility for this spent fuel reactor waste, which will remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years and must be permanently isolated from entering the environment.
The organization visited Saint John on June 4 and held an open house in an effort to sell Canadians on their idea of a large central underground repository for spent nuclear reactor fuel waste. This will mean ongoing transportation of nuclear waste across the Canadian landscape. They are touting big financial benefits to the community/province who accepts their nuclear waste proposal.
Their proposal to establish a central underground storage facility will not eliminate the continued and on-going storage of hundreds of tons of radioactive spent fuel waste at the various Canadian reactor sites, including Lepreau.
The central waste storage facility proposal will only add to the on-going risk and danger to the public and environment. This waste will be transported by rail, highway and water. The potential for accidents, sabotage and diversion are real.
The concept of continued production of nuclear waste and on-going transportation from reactor sites to a central repository should not be decided without public participation. This requires open, transparent and public community meetings and debates, not self-serving open houses. Future human health and the environment depend upon it.

Nuclear Waste Facility in New Brunswick?

All are encouraged to go to the public information sessions on siting a nuclear waste facility in New Brunswick. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (http://nwmo.ca) was created as part of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. They are holding public information session in “nuclear” provinces (NB, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan) to develop a process which will lead to a dump-site location. NWMO is holding public information sessions in early June in New Brunswick. Each session (see below) lasts from 2-9pm. If you do not like the idea of a nuclear waste disposal site near you, then let’s coordinate our attendance at these meetings and show NWMO how we feel. If we all agree on a time of attendance, we can take a public information session and turn it into a public meeting. Maybe the selection process should not include New Brunswick at all!
*****************
June 3: Fredericton
Crowne Plaza Fredericton Lord Beaverbrook Hotel
659 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A6
Tel: 506.455.3371
*****************
June 4: Edmundston
Château Edmundston
100 Rue Rice, Edmundston, NB E3V 1T4
Tel: 506.739.7321
*****************
June 4: Saint John
Delta Saint John
39 King Street, Saint John, NB E2L 4W3
Tel: 506.648.1981
*****************
June 18: Bathurst
Atlantic Host Bathurst
1450 Vanier Blvd
Tel: 506.548.3335

Nuclear Waste Too Dangerous

For Immediate Release
June 3, 2009
Nuclear Waste Too Dangerous:
Another reason to oppose nuclear power
Fredericton – The Conservation Council of New Brunswick and the International Institute of Concern for Public Health is expressing concerns as the first of three public meetings on siting a nuclear waste facility gets underway today in Fredericton by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. The NWMO will visit Saint John and Edmundston next on Thursday, June 4.
“Establishing a central nuclear waste storage facility will not solve the problems of nuclear power. The proposal for central waste storage facility will only add to the on-going risk and danger to the public and the environment,” stated David Coon, the Conservation Council’s Executive Director. “The transportation of high-level radioactive waste from each reactor site in Canada to the proposed central repository is a huge concern. This waste could be transported by rail, highway and water passing through communities, farm lands and water ways. Accidents, sabotage and diversion make it too risky.”
“If radioactive waste could be stored successfully, which has yet to be proven, we would still be faced with a long list of problems associated with the nuclear fuel chain. Uranium mining, uranium processing, transportation, making fuel rods and operating the nuclear plant, all involve releases of radioactive contaminants into air, water, land and food. For example, radon emitted from uranium tailing ponds is a serious unresolved problem. Our position is therefore to phase out nuclear power in Canada and stop exporting CANDU reactors and uranium products to other countries. New Brunswick is one of three provinces that have decided unwisely to go nuclear,” stated Willi Nolan, New Brunswick representative with the International Institute of Concern for Public Health.
The NWMO is made up of the companies and utilities who currently own, create and store nuclear spent fuel waste at their reactor sites in Canada. The NWMO was mandated to site and build a central, permanent, long-term underground waste storage facility for spent fuel reactor waste. The NWMO has now begun a cross-country road show to cities in provinces with reactor sites currently holding nuclear waste.
The Conservation Council of New Brunswick, the International Institute of Concern for Public Health and other organizations across the province belong to the Campaign for a Nuclear Free New Brunswick, which demands: 1) A permanent ban on uranium exploration and mining in New Brunswick; 2) abandonment of plans for nuclear power expansion, and 3) an immediate phase out of existing nuclear programs including the abandonment of plans to refurbish the Point Lepreau reactor.
-30-
David Coon, Conservation Council of New Brunswick, 506 458-8747
Willi Nolan, International Institute of Concern for Public Health, N.B. Representative, 506 785-4660

German renewable energy expert to speak in Fredericton

May 21, 2009

Conservation Council of New Brunswick News Release

For immediate publication

Fredericton – Dr. Christine Wörlen, independent renewable energy consultant to governments around the world, and former head of the German Renewable Energy Agency will give a public talk on maximizing the use of renewable energy at the Conservation Council of New Brunswick this Thursday, May 21st at 7pm. Dr. Wörlen will also hold meetings with political, government, and utility officials during her visit.

“This is a wonderful opportunity to learn from the German renewable energy experience.” said Julie Michaud, Climate Action Coordinator with the Conservation Council of New Brunswick. “Germany leads the world in the development of renewable energy, and the benefits aren’t just limited to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Germany’s eco-economy has also created 250,000 green jobs. Renewable energy is actually one of the primary drivers of the strong and resilient German economy.”

Michaud added that it’s important to invest in renewable energy despite the current economic situation. With the Chief Economist for CIBC World Markets forecasting oil prices to hit $225 a barrel by 2012, the cost savings on fuel purchases for power generation will make renewable energy one of the most important tools to help us bounce back from the recession.

“New Brunswick has an incredible opportunity to drive its economy while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” said Michaud. “There’s no lack of renewable energy resources in this province. Our solar and wind resources are actually better than what’s available in Germany!”

The presentation will take place at 7pm this Thursday, May 21st at the Conservation Council of New Brunswick located at 180 St. John Street. Dr. Wörlen’s visit is being co-sponsored by the Conservation Council, the Canadian Climate Action Network, and the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

-30-

Contact:

Julie Michaud

Climate Action Coordinator

(506) 458-8747

No need to build new U.S. coal or nuclear plants — FERC chairman

No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said today.

“We may not need any, ever,” Jon Wellinghoff told reporters at a U.S. Energy Association forum.

The FERC chairman’s comments go beyond those of other Obama administration officials, who have strongly endorsed greater efficiency and renewables deployment but also say nuclear and fossil energies will continue playing a major role.

Read more

Down the Yellow Cake Road

YELLOWCAKE – a 10-minute documentary intended to raise public awareness of the environmental, health, and socioeconomic impacts from producing fuel for nuclear reactors. Nationally the uranium industry and government are forging ahead with plans for new mine, mill, conversion and enrichment, fuel, and power plant facilities, before cleaning up all past contamination, or solving the problem of safe disposal of nuclear waste.

A Daughter of Radon Remembers

Inka Milewski, Science Advisor and Director of Health Watch
Conservation Council of New Brunswick for NBEN’s Elements
February 2009

f Poplar Road looks like any street in suburban Canada, it should. The street, like the town where it’s located, was the product of a 1950s planning model that was applied to countless cities and towns across Canada. Two shopping plazas, precursor to malls, were at the center of the town’s suburban-like sprawl. At its peak in 1960, the town had 25,000 residents and the distinction of being one of the largest single industry mining communities in Canadian history. This was Elliot Lake.

Within a decade of its emergence from Ontario’s northern wilderness, the population plummeted to 6700, only to bounce back in the 1980s. The town’s population would rise and fall with every boom-and-bust cycle in the industry. Each cycle created a large turnover (up to 50% in 1981) of residents.

Elliot Lake wasn’t just any mining town. It billed itself as the “Uranium Capital of the World” (a title now claimed by Saskatchewan). At the town’s entrance, visitors were greeted by a giant model of a uranium atom. Between 1956 and 1966, there were 11 mines operating in the Elliot Lake-Blind River area. Two of those mines, Milliken Lake and Stanleigh, were less than three kilometers from Poplar Road.


Inka and her brother, Patrice, on Poplar Road circa early 1980s.
(Photo: Inka Milewski)

Gus Froebel was a uranium miner. He lived with his wife and children at 32 Poplar Road. In the early 70s, he developed lung cancer. At the time, the Workmen’s Compensation Board (WCB) and the uranium industry wouldn’t acknowledge there was a link between exposure to radiation in the mines and lung cancer. As far as the WCB, the industry, the Atomic Energy Control Board, and government-funded cancer research agencies were concerned, smoking among miners was the major cause of lung cancer. With thousands of men working in uranium mines, reversing this mind-set would have had huge policy and financial implications. Gus and the union who represented him were in for a long fight.

Forty years earlier, two Czech scientists and physicians published a landmark study in the American Journal of Cancer (Pirchan and Sikl 1932). They linked miners’ lung tumors with radon exposure in Czechoslovakian mines. Ten years later, Wilhelm C. Hueper, a world leading expert on lung cancer and founding director of the environmental cancer section of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, came to the same conclusion. He reviewed 300 years of radon data on European miners and found that radon gas produced lung cancer that killed more than half of all miners 10-20 years after their employment. He issued warnings worldwide, including in Canada. These were largely unheeded.

Declassified documents from the 1950s show that the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission told Hueper that references to occupational cancers among uranium miners were “not in the public interest” and “represented mere conjecture”(Nikiforuk 1998). Forty years after the Czech study was published and thirty years after Hueper’s warnings, a 1974 Ontario Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines found that Elliot Lake uranium miners were experiencing twice as many lung cancers as expected. The report was filed the same year the WCB would hear Gus Froebel’s case.

Deadly Daughters

Uranium is a heavy metal, in fact the heaviest. Unlike any metal, uranium is radioactive. Trapped in ore and in the ground, uranium is relatively harmless unless it leaches into aquifers and contaminates drinking water or its deadly radioactive by-products (thorium-230, radium-226, radon-222, and the radon daughters: lead-210, bismuth-210 and polonium-210) escape through rock fissures and collect in the atmosphere or in homes.

Uranium deposits in Elliot Lake were low grade. It took one tonne of ore to extract one kilogram of uranium. The miner drilled, blasted, and mucked (excavated) the ore and mill operators crushed it. Through these processes, toxic radon gas and its deadly daughters were released. The gas is easily inhaled and exhaled. The daughters, however, lodge in the lining of the lungs and bombard the delicate tissues with radiation. As for the by-products, millions of tonnes of radioactive leftovers or tailings, they gave off 10,000 times more radon gas than undisturbed ore.

In 1932, the federal Department of Mines (as Natural Resources Canada was then known) knew from its own studies in Port Radium that “a hazard may exist in the breathing of air containing even small amounts of radon”(Nikiforuk 1998). The federal government would not set radon standards until 1967.


Tailings area for Stanrock mine (Elliot Lake). A wall of radioactive sand 10 metres high holds back the tailings.
(Photo credit: Robert Del Tredici, 1987).

Gus Froebel won his battle with the Workmen’s Compensation Board in 1974. It was hailed as a landmark victory. Lung cancer in uranium miners would now be recognized as being caused by exposure to radiation. Even so, making a claim wouldn’t be a simple matter. Miners filing claims would often have to jump through many hoops to prove their eligibility. It was a long, sometimes expensive, and not always successful process.

Not long after his victory, Gus died of his disease.

My father was also a uranium miner in Elliot Lake. Like Gus Froebel, we lived on Poplar Road just four doors away. Like Gus, and hundreds of other uranium miners, my father died of lung cancer that eventually spread to his brain. Despite having chest x-rays every year (as required for all miners), a lung biopsy, being hospitalized several times, breathing difficulties, and finally collapsing in the mine, local doctors attributed his condition to all kinds of diseases except work-related lung cancer. Convinced my father’s case was eligible for compensation, we sought second and third medical opinions, hired a lawyer, and eventually won. Not all miners and their families were as determined.

And, like Gus, my father didn’t live long after his victory.

While the last mine in Elliot Lake closed in 1996, the toxic legacy of uranium mining lives on in the miners, the majority of whom with their families are scattered across Canada. Any meaningful assessment of the true health impacts of uranium mining on Elliot Lake residents is almost impossible because of the high turnover in the population over the decades. The massive uranium tailing areas are legend. They are the subject of hundreds of studies, documentaries, books, and photos and support an army of scientists and engineers that are trying to figure out how to contain the contamination.

Information Sources and Additional Reading
(all sources available online)

Edwards, G. 1992. Uranium: The Deadliest Metal. Perception 10(2).

Leadbeater, D. 1998. The Development of Elliot Lake, “Uranium Capital of the World”: A background to the layoffs of 1990-1996. ELTAS Analysis #1A19, Laurentian University, Sudbury. 51 p.

Lewis, R.K. 2006. A history of radon 1470-1984. Proceedings of the 16th National Radon Meeting. Frankford, Kentucky.

Nikiforuk, A. 1998. Echoes of the Atomic Age: Cancer kills fourteen aboriginal uranium workers. Calgary Herald, March 14

Animation against uranium mining in N.B.

Alternatives to nuclear available

Telegraph-Journal, Published Saturday February 14th, 2009
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/572294
I am a physics graduate from UdeM and I strongly oppose Point Lepreau’s second reactor.
Our government wants to purchase the yet untested ACR-1000 nuclear reactor. After having invested big money in designing the ACR-1000, Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. is now desperately trying to sell it but no one wants it! Even nuclear friendly Ontario said no.
But New Brunswick’s Premier wants to say yes. Yes to Point Lepreau 2, to a research reactor, to uranium mining and to a nuclear waste dump.
Nuclear energy is not green. Uranium is mined with a tremendous cost to the environment. Nuclear generated electricity is not a solution to our green house gas emission problem since only seven per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity generation.
Profitable and safe nuclear energy is science fiction. What is real is that technology development now advances so fast that we need to look at what’s coming up on the scientific horizon. Renewable technologies will be a desirable alternative much sooner than our prime minister seems to realize.
Solar, wind, wood pellets and hydrogen fuel cells are opening the door to smaller centres of power production. These are today’s new technologies. They are safer, greener and the more we develop them the more they become profitable. It will be with embarrassment that our descendants will try to contain radioactive waste for the next 10,000 years. They’ll never understand our arrogance in leaving this legacy when existing technologies would have allowed us to behave more responsibly.
MARC THERIAULT
Moncton