NEW PARTNERSHIP TO ADVISE GOVERNMENT ON NUCLEAR INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN NEWS RELEASE
OCTOBER 20, 2008
Enterprise and Innovation Minister Lyle Stewart and Crown Corporations Minister Ken Cheveldayoff today announced the establishment of a new 12 person Uranium Development Partnership to advise the Government of Saskatchewan on further development of Saskatchewan's vast uranium resources.
"As the world moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, many countries including Canada are looking to nuclear power as a source of clean, reliable electricity," Stewart said. "The expansion of the nuclear industry around the world offers an opportunity for Saskatchewan to add value to our raw uranium resources, grow our economy, create new jobs and contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions."
Led by Dr. Richard Florizone, a nuclear physicist and Vice President of Finance at the University of Saskatchewan, the mandate of the Uranium Development Partnership is to identify, evaluate and make recommendations on Saskatchewan-based, value added opportunities in the uranium industry.
The partnership includes representatives from the University of Regina and the University of Saskatchewan, urban and rural municipalities, business, labour, First Nations, the environmental community and Canada's nuclear industry.
The partnership will also identify challenges to development; investment requirements and timelines; legislative and/or regulatory conditions required to move forward. The partnership will also identify research and development opportunities; labour force requirements; and education and training capacity.
"The Uranium Development Partnership will receive up to $3 million in funding from the Crown Investments Corporation," Cheveldayoff said. "Saskatchewan needs to develop an energy plan for the future, and we will be looking at primarily four sources of energy - nuclear, wind, hydro and clean coal."
The partnership will provide a final report to the government by March 31, 2009. The report will include specific recommendations on value added opportunities best suited to the development of the uranium industry.
The partnership report will be released to the public and form the basis for public consultation.
-30-
For more information, contact:
Deb Young
Enterprise and Innovation
Regina
Phone: 306-798-0503
Mike Woods
Crown Investments Corporation
Regina
Phone: 306-787-5889
Backgrounder
Uranium Development Partnership
Canada is the world’s largest producer of natural uranium.
As the world moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, many countries including Canada are looking to nuclear power as a source of clean, reliable electricity.
The expansion of the nuclear industry around the world offers an opportunity for Saskatchewan to add value to our raw uranium resources, grow our economy, create new jobs and contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
The Government of Saskatchewan has established the Uranium Development Partnership with a mandate is to identify, evaluate and make recommendations on Saskatchewan based opportunities for value added development of our uranium industry.
The 12 member partnership includes representatives from the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Regina, urban and rural municipalities, business, labour, First Nations, the environmental community and Canada’s nuclear industry.
Dr. Richard Florizone has agreed to chair the Partnership. Dr. Florizone currently serves as Vice President of Finance and Resources at the University of Saskatchewan. Originally from Prince Albert, Dr. Florizone graduated from the University of Saskatchewan with degrees in Engineering and Physics and holds a Phd in Nuclear Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Under Dr. Florizone’s leadership, the Uranium Development Partnership will consider opportunities for further value-added development of Saskatchewan’s uranium industry.
In conducting its work, the Partnership will also identify:
• challenges to further development and actions required to address those challenges;
• investment requirements and timeframes; and
• legislative, licensing and/or regulatory conditions required to move forward.
The Partnership will also identify research and development opportunities, labour force requirements and related education and training capacity required to support the further development of the uranium industry in Saskatchewan.
Finally, the Partnership will make specific recommendations on value added opportunities best suited to Saskatchewan.
To support the work of the Partnership, the Government of Saskatchewan will provide up to $3 million in funding through the Crown Investments Corporation.
The Partnership will provide a final report to the government by March 31, 2009.
While the Partnership’s work plan does not include submissions from the public, the complete Partnership Report will be released as part of a full public consultation process.
The government will use both the Partnership Report and public input to make decisions on how best to develop Saskatchewan’s uranium industry, create new jobs, generate clean energy and support the long term prosperity of our province.
Uranium Development Partnership Members:
Dr. Richard Florizone is Vice President of Finance and Resources at the University of Saskatchewan and holds a PhD in Nuclear Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ray Ahenakew has served as Chief Executive Officer of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council and President of the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology where he is currently serving as Business Development Advisor.
Keith Brown represents the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce. Keith is President and founder of Trailtech Inc in Gravelbourg and has served as Chairman of the Saskatchewan Trade and Export Development Partnership.
Neil Collins is a 30 year veteran with SaskPower and currently serves as Business Manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 2067.
Allan Earle is President of the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association and Mayor of the Town of Dalmeny.
Jerry Grandey is the President and CEO of Cameco Corporation, the world’s largest publicly traded Uranium producer headquartered right here in Saskatoon.
Jim Hallick is Vice President of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and a Coucillor for the RM of Keys.
Duncan Hawthorne is the President and CEO, Bruce Power Inc.. Mr. Hawthorne also serves as Chair of the Canadian Nuclear Association, Director of the Energy Council of Canada and is a member of the Board of Governors of the World Association of Nuclear Operators.
Armand Laferrere is President and CEO of AREVA Canada. With 925 employees in Saskatchewan and 65,000 employees in 43 countries, AREVA is a world leader in nuclear power and is active across the full nuclear fuel cycle.
Dr. Edward Mathie is Professor of Nuclear Physics at the University of Regina and a member of the Canadian Association of Physicists, the Canadian Institute of Particle Physics and the Canadian Institute of Nuclear Physics.
*** Dr. Patrick Moore is co-founder of Greenpeace, former President of Greenpeace Canada and a former Director of Greenpeace International. Dr. Moore currently serves as Chair and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd in Vancouver, B.C. *** (Emphasis added. EH)
Alex Pourbaix is President – Energy, Trans Canada Corporation with responsibility for the company’s power, gas storage, Liquefied Natural Gas and compressed gas businesses.
---------------------------------
*** Patrick Moore: The Case of the "Greenpeace Co-Founder" and His Corporate Clients
http://www.endgame.org/moore.pdf - February 2007
================================
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephanie Sydiaha
To: Clean Greens
Cc: David Forbes
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:10 PM
Subject: press release- Uranium Development Partnership
Greetings:
Please find attached & below
(Patrick Moore: The Case of the "Greenpeace Co-Founder" and His Corporate Clients http://www.endgame.org/moore.pdf
Prepared by Environmental Health Fund Research by Public Information Network February 2007)
Today's announcement of the members of the "Uranium Development Partnership" http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=8bc816 ... 80f3edba76 which will examine the notion of a "value added" nuclear industry for Saskatchewan.
Most notably on the panel are the CEO's and Presidents of Bruce Power, Cameco and Areva, the latter of which is owned by the French Government. One might ask why we would allow a representative of the French nuclear establishment on a panel of such importance in Canada.
Dr. Patrick Moore is also on this esteemed panel. I have attached a document outlining Patrick Moore's activities since he left Greenpeace many, many years ago. This document also contains a letter from 20 former Greenpeace staffers who criticize Mr. Moore's failure to reveal his work for the Nuclear Energy Institute as a paid nuclear industry lobbyist.
Please circulate far and wide.
Thanks.
Stephanie Sydiaha
for the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan
UDP Process - Beginning to End
18 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
UDP Process - Beginning to End
by Oscar » Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:04 pm
Last edited by Oscar on Thu May 28, 2009 9:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Majority of group pro-development
by Oscar » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:32 am
Majority of group pro-development
Monday, November 03, 2008
Uranium Development Partnership: Majority of group pro-development; Cameco, TransCanada, AREVA big Saskatchewan Party contributors
http://owlsandroosters.blogspot.com/200 ... rship.html
=================
BP to use inferior open house format
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Bruce Power: Information sessions to utilize inferior open house format; online presentation doesn’t appear to mesh with feasibility study
"The Ontario-based private nuclear generating company took out full-page ads in the Prince Albert Daily Herald on Feb. 14 and Mar. 7 with the most recent one offering what appears to be a free meal to anyone willing to come out and listen to its spiel."
http://owlsandroosters.blogspot.com/200 ... ns-to.html
=======================================
Enterprise Sask shows panel's recommendations more important than public
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Uranium Development Partnership: Enterprise Saskatchewan 2009-10 Plan shows panel’s recommendations more important than public consultation
"“Effective July 29, 2008, all of the documentation and approvals were completed to proclaim The Enterprise Saskatchewan Act, and to appoint the interim advisory committee members as the statutory ES Board of Directors as set out in the ES legislation.
“Accordingly, access to the records you have requested is denied pursuant to subclause 17(1)(f) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which permits an exemption to be applied for agendas and minutes of the Board.”
In other words now that the Enterprise Saskatchewan board has the ability to hide behind the Act that’s exactly what it intends to do. Clearly this is one bunch that does not want the public to know its business."
http://owlsandroosters.blogspot.com/200 ... rship.html
==================
CIC refusing to release agendas and minutes from meetings
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Uranium Development Partnership: CIC refusing to release agendas and minutes from panel’s meetings; freedom of information legislation violated
http://owlsandroosters.blogspot.com/200 ... p-cic.html
Monday, November 03, 2008
Uranium Development Partnership: Majority of group pro-development; Cameco, TransCanada, AREVA big Saskatchewan Party contributors
http://owlsandroosters.blogspot.com/200 ... rship.html
=================
BP to use inferior open house format
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Bruce Power: Information sessions to utilize inferior open house format; online presentation doesn’t appear to mesh with feasibility study
"The Ontario-based private nuclear generating company took out full-page ads in the Prince Albert Daily Herald on Feb. 14 and Mar. 7 with the most recent one offering what appears to be a free meal to anyone willing to come out and listen to its spiel."
http://owlsandroosters.blogspot.com/200 ... ns-to.html
=======================================
Enterprise Sask shows panel's recommendations more important than public
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Uranium Development Partnership: Enterprise Saskatchewan 2009-10 Plan shows panel’s recommendations more important than public consultation
"“Effective July 29, 2008, all of the documentation and approvals were completed to proclaim The Enterprise Saskatchewan Act, and to appoint the interim advisory committee members as the statutory ES Board of Directors as set out in the ES legislation.
“Accordingly, access to the records you have requested is denied pursuant to subclause 17(1)(f) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which permits an exemption to be applied for agendas and minutes of the Board.”
In other words now that the Enterprise Saskatchewan board has the ability to hide behind the Act that’s exactly what it intends to do. Clearly this is one bunch that does not want the public to know its business."
http://owlsandroosters.blogspot.com/200 ... rship.html
==================
CIC refusing to release agendas and minutes from meetings
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Uranium Development Partnership: CIC refusing to release agendas and minutes from panel’s meetings; freedom of information legislation violated
http://owlsandroosters.blogspot.com/200 ... p-cic.html
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
How Might Saskatchewan’s Grass-Roots Respond to The UDP’s “P
by Oscar » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:05 pm
How Might Saskatchewan’s Grass-Roots Respond to The UDP’s “Public Forums”?
By Jim Harding
Published in R-Town News on April 10, 2009
On March 31st, the Sask Party government’s Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) released its report “Capturing the full potential of the uranium value chain in Saskatchewan.”
With members of the very nuclear corporations that would benefit from nuclear expansion, the credibility of the UDP was already compromised.
There is something very disturbing that while it sat on the UDP, Bruce Power was distributing 50,000 copies of its 24-page booklet promoting nuclear power plants on the North Sask River.
The main owners of Bruce Power (Cameco and Trans-Canada), who would profit from uranium sales and transmission expansion, had additional seats on the UDP.
Talk about stacking the deck!
The government is trying to salvage the flawed process by holding nine hastily conceived “public forums” from May 19th to June 5th.
With recommendations to expand the nuclear industry already made, what influence can “public input” really have?
Is there any way to turn this political travesty into a rebirth of participatory democracy in our province?
The grass-roots will likely continue raising concerns about nuclear corporations being given the inside track on energy policy, as when 450 people attended the Save Our Sask (SOS) meeting March 9th at Paradise Hill, near Lloydminster.
The forums could be an opportunity to factually challenge the UDP and Sask Party promoting nuclear power as “green energy.” Recent polls suggest “greenwashing” is appealing to only about one-third of the population.
Nuclear corporations who have long promoted Saskatchewan as a nuclear waste site got their way with the UDP. But knowing public opinion opposes this, the Sask Party government quickly dissociated itself from this recommendation.
The grass-roots will likely remind Brad Wall’s Ministers that you can’t have nuclear power without nuclear wastes, and if nuclear plants were built here, as the UDP recommends, we’d become the target for a nuclear dump.
More information about radioactive tritium leaks at the Chalk River nuclear plant, the squandering of $400 million taxpayers’ money on two failed Maple reactors, and that medical isotopes can be produced in a safer manner, might take the wind out of the UDP’s recommendation that Saskatchewan get into the isotope business.
The UDP process is ass-backward.
The potential of us going forward on a sustainable energy path was never given a fair or objective consideration.
The UDP is primarily about creating a business expansion plan for the nuclear industry at public cost.
The upcoming forums therefore need to be independently monitored so that the views expressed aren’t misrepresented through the media to try to legitimize the UDP’s not-so-hidden agenda.
Preparing for these public forums could be an opportunity for those concerned about water quantity and quality, environmental health, nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation and the taxpayer being exploited to form networks to study and promote renewable energy and a sustainable society.
The influence of these sustainability networks would surely outlast the tainted influence of the UDP.
Next week I’ll look at how Sask Power’s budget and policy trends could make room for the UDP’s nuclear business plan.
~ ~ ~
Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies and writes a column "Saskatchewan Sustainability" for the weekly R-Town News chain.
~ ~ ~ ~
You can locate the UDP report and/or give input at
www.saskuranium.ca or mail your views to P.O. Box. 7, Regina, SK, S4P 2Z5.
Meetings are at Prince Albert, Buffalo Narrows, The Battlefords, Lloydminster, Yorkton, Estevan, Swift Current, Regina and Saskatoon.
By Jim Harding
Published in R-Town News on April 10, 2009
On March 31st, the Sask Party government’s Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) released its report “Capturing the full potential of the uranium value chain in Saskatchewan.”
With members of the very nuclear corporations that would benefit from nuclear expansion, the credibility of the UDP was already compromised.
There is something very disturbing that while it sat on the UDP, Bruce Power was distributing 50,000 copies of its 24-page booklet promoting nuclear power plants on the North Sask River.
The main owners of Bruce Power (Cameco and Trans-Canada), who would profit from uranium sales and transmission expansion, had additional seats on the UDP.
Talk about stacking the deck!
The government is trying to salvage the flawed process by holding nine hastily conceived “public forums” from May 19th to June 5th.
With recommendations to expand the nuclear industry already made, what influence can “public input” really have?
Is there any way to turn this political travesty into a rebirth of participatory democracy in our province?
The grass-roots will likely continue raising concerns about nuclear corporations being given the inside track on energy policy, as when 450 people attended the Save Our Sask (SOS) meeting March 9th at Paradise Hill, near Lloydminster.
The forums could be an opportunity to factually challenge the UDP and Sask Party promoting nuclear power as “green energy.” Recent polls suggest “greenwashing” is appealing to only about one-third of the population.
Nuclear corporations who have long promoted Saskatchewan as a nuclear waste site got their way with the UDP. But knowing public opinion opposes this, the Sask Party government quickly dissociated itself from this recommendation.
The grass-roots will likely remind Brad Wall’s Ministers that you can’t have nuclear power without nuclear wastes, and if nuclear plants were built here, as the UDP recommends, we’d become the target for a nuclear dump.
More information about radioactive tritium leaks at the Chalk River nuclear plant, the squandering of $400 million taxpayers’ money on two failed Maple reactors, and that medical isotopes can be produced in a safer manner, might take the wind out of the UDP’s recommendation that Saskatchewan get into the isotope business.
The UDP process is ass-backward.
The potential of us going forward on a sustainable energy path was never given a fair or objective consideration.
The UDP is primarily about creating a business expansion plan for the nuclear industry at public cost.
The upcoming forums therefore need to be independently monitored so that the views expressed aren’t misrepresented through the media to try to legitimize the UDP’s not-so-hidden agenda.
Preparing for these public forums could be an opportunity for those concerned about water quantity and quality, environmental health, nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation and the taxpayer being exploited to form networks to study and promote renewable energy and a sustainable society.
The influence of these sustainability networks would surely outlast the tainted influence of the UDP.
Next week I’ll look at how Sask Power’s budget and policy trends could make room for the UDP’s nuclear business plan.
~ ~ ~
Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies and writes a column "Saskatchewan Sustainability" for the weekly R-Town News chain.
~ ~ ~ ~
You can locate the UDP report and/or give input at
www.saskuranium.ca or mail your views to P.O. Box. 7, Regina, SK, S4P 2Z5.
Meetings are at Prince Albert, Buffalo Narrows, The Battlefords, Lloydminster, Yorkton, Estevan, Swift Current, Regina and Saskatoon.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
PERRINS OUTLINES DATES AND LOCATIONS FOR CONSULTATION PROCES
by Oscar » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:33 pm
PERRINS OUTLINES DATES AND LOCATIONS FOR CONSULTATION PROCESS
News Release - April 22, 2009
http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=d09a6d ... aa8995baea
Dan Perrins, Chair of the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan public consultation process today announced the dates and locations for community consultations and stakeholder meetings.
Perrins' mandate is to conduct public consultations on the key findings and recommendations of the Uranium Development Partnership report, Capturing the Full Potential of the Uranium Value Chain in Saskatchewan, and then draft a report on what he heard from Saskatchewan people, stakeholders and communities by August 31, 2009.
"The opening Stakeholder Conference will take place on May 26 in Saskatoon followed by two full days of stakeholder meetings in Saskatoon on May 27 and May 28 and two more full days of stakeholder meetings on June 22 and 23 in Regina," Perrins said. "I am also planning a number of First Nations and Métis consultation meetings; however, the locations and dates of those meetings have not yet been confirmed."
Perrins also announced that the first of ten community consultation meetings will take place in June starting on June 1 in Yorkton.
Dates and locations of all community consultations and stakeholder meetings are available on the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan Consultation website at www.saskuranium.ca.
"Over the past two weeks, I have been working on refining the consultation framework provided by the government," Perrins said. "Today, I am building on that framework by adding some additional opportunities for public engagement that I believe will strengthen the consultation process."
Perrins noted that he has added two additional stakeholder meetings and an additional community consultation meeting in La Ronge to the consultation program.
"I will continue to develop and finalize the consultation process over the next week including consideration of how community consultations could be enhanced using the Internet and whether further meetings with stakeholders and remote northern communities should be added to the schedule."
Perrins also reminded the public about opportunities to get informed and get involved now: www.saskuranium.ca - the consultation website contains the full UDP report, presentation materials, online input opportunities, and ultimately, the results of the public input;
Individuals and stakeholders who want to provide input but don't want to attend a meeting or don't have Internet access can send written submissions through regular mail to: "The Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan" P.O. Box 7, Regina, SK, S4P 2Z5; and
Individuals and stakeholders can call toll-free (1-877-791-4667) to request a copy of the Uranium Development Partnership Report or Executive Summary; and
Stakeholders can call the same toll-free number to register for a one-on-one presentation to the Consultation Chair at one of the stakeholder meetings in May and June.
Individuals and stakeholders can send written submissions either on-line, by email or by regular mail until July 31. Perrins will submit a Final Report to the Government of Saskatchewan on the public consultations by August 31, 2009.
-30-
For more information, contact:
Leanne Persicke
Executive Council
Regina
Phone: 306-787-1321
Chris Dekker
Enterprise Saskatchewan
Saskatoon
Phone: 306-933-6744
Consultation Schedule:
http://www.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMed ... &PN=Shared
The Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan – Consultation Schedule
Date Location Meeting
Tuesday, May 26 Saskatoon Half-day Stakeholder Conference
Wednesday, May 27 Saskatoon Stakeholder Meetings
Thursday, May 28 Saskatoon Stakeholder Meetings
Monday, June 1 Yorkton Public Consultation Meeting
Tuesday, June 2 Estevan Public Consultation Meeting
Wednesday, June 3 Swift Current Public Consultation Meeting
Thursday, June 4 Regina Public Consultation Meeting
Monday, June 8 Prince Albert Public Consultation Meeting
Tuesday, June 9 Buffalo Narrows Public Consultation Meeting
News Release - April 22, 2009
http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=d09a6d ... aa8995baea
Dan Perrins, Chair of the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan public consultation process today announced the dates and locations for community consultations and stakeholder meetings.
Perrins' mandate is to conduct public consultations on the key findings and recommendations of the Uranium Development Partnership report, Capturing the Full Potential of the Uranium Value Chain in Saskatchewan, and then draft a report on what he heard from Saskatchewan people, stakeholders and communities by August 31, 2009.
"The opening Stakeholder Conference will take place on May 26 in Saskatoon followed by two full days of stakeholder meetings in Saskatoon on May 27 and May 28 and two more full days of stakeholder meetings on June 22 and 23 in Regina," Perrins said. "I am also planning a number of First Nations and Métis consultation meetings; however, the locations and dates of those meetings have not yet been confirmed."
Perrins also announced that the first of ten community consultation meetings will take place in June starting on June 1 in Yorkton.
Dates and locations of all community consultations and stakeholder meetings are available on the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan Consultation website at www.saskuranium.ca.
"Over the past two weeks, I have been working on refining the consultation framework provided by the government," Perrins said. "Today, I am building on that framework by adding some additional opportunities for public engagement that I believe will strengthen the consultation process."
Perrins noted that he has added two additional stakeholder meetings and an additional community consultation meeting in La Ronge to the consultation program.
"I will continue to develop and finalize the consultation process over the next week including consideration of how community consultations could be enhanced using the Internet and whether further meetings with stakeholders and remote northern communities should be added to the schedule."
Perrins also reminded the public about opportunities to get informed and get involved now: www.saskuranium.ca - the consultation website contains the full UDP report, presentation materials, online input opportunities, and ultimately, the results of the public input;
Individuals and stakeholders who want to provide input but don't want to attend a meeting or don't have Internet access can send written submissions through regular mail to: "The Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan" P.O. Box 7, Regina, SK, S4P 2Z5; and
Individuals and stakeholders can call toll-free (1-877-791-4667) to request a copy of the Uranium Development Partnership Report or Executive Summary; and
Stakeholders can call the same toll-free number to register for a one-on-one presentation to the Consultation Chair at one of the stakeholder meetings in May and June.
Individuals and stakeholders can send written submissions either on-line, by email or by regular mail until July 31. Perrins will submit a Final Report to the Government of Saskatchewan on the public consultations by August 31, 2009.
-30-
For more information, contact:
Leanne Persicke
Executive Council
Regina
Phone: 306-787-1321
Chris Dekker
Enterprise Saskatchewan
Saskatoon
Phone: 306-933-6744
Consultation Schedule:
http://www.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMed ... &PN=Shared
The Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan – Consultation Schedule
Date Location Meeting
Tuesday, May 26 Saskatoon Half-day Stakeholder Conference
Wednesday, May 27 Saskatoon Stakeholder Meetings
Thursday, May 28 Saskatoon Stakeholder Meetings
Monday, June 1 Yorkton Public Consultation Meeting
Tuesday, June 2 Estevan Public Consultation Meeting
Wednesday, June 3 Swift Current Public Consultation Meeting
Thursday, June 4 Regina Public Consultation Meeting
Monday, June 8 Prince Albert Public Consultation Meeting
Tuesday, June 9 Buffalo Narrows Public Consultation Meeting
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
UDP Presentations - May/June 2009
by Oscar » Fri May 29, 2009 9:16 am
Thinking Beyond the Uranium Box
Thanks for the opportunity to present today.
I am the producer of www.makingthelinksradio.ca which broadcasts on the internet and through community radio channels.
I have produced programs about nuclearization and the nuclear cycle. Making the Links Radio has broadcasted the voices of those in debate on the question, and those who would like to see a non nuclear renewable future for the world.
I think that history will prove that our only course of action for a sustainable world is the cultivating, harnessing and stewardship of renewable resources.
I recently visted my daughter Rosa Kouri who is an environment graduate student at Oxford University. When I was there she took me to hear two imminent climate change thinkers Thomas Homer-Dixon and Nicolas Stern. Nicholas Stern wrote the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate. Thomas Homer-Dixon has written the Ingenuity Gap, and The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization.
I was struck by their insights and the information that they gave.
Homer-Dixon talked about Uncertainty, Lags and Non Linearity. He says in “In a world of risk, we can judge dangers and opportunities by using the best evidence at hand to estimate the probability of a particular outcome. But in a world of uncertainty, we can’t estimate probabilities, because we don’t have any clear basis for making such a judgment. In fact, we might not even know what the possible outcomes are. Surprises keep coming out of the blue, because we’re fundamentally ignorant of our own ignorance. We’re surrounded by unknown unknowns.”
He pointed out how the recent economic collapse and recession are an example of this uncertainty. “No one really knows where the boundaries of the current problem lie, what new surprises are in store, or what measures will be truly adequate to stop the bleeding. “
If one applies the logic of Homer-Dixon’s thinking to the global climate crisis one has to be extremely precautionary about what avenues we would take to produce energy and reduce carbon emissions.
S. Julio Friedmann and Thomas Homer-Dixon article in [76] Foreign Affairs. Volume 83 No. 6 does not hold out nuclear power as the viable option. “Yet nuclear power is almost twice as expensive as fossil-fuel energy, and, like liquefied gas, it presents serious security risks. Nuclear power plants, especially breeder reactors, produce a lot of highly radioactive waste, chiefly plutonium. Scientists might eventually figure out how to safely store waste for the tens of thousands of years it takes to become innocuous, and politicians might be able to convince reluctant constituencies to accept living by it in the meantime. But such nuclear material could still be diverted or stolen and converted into bombs. As it is extremely toxic, terrorists could use it for radiological or “dirty” bombs, and it contains plutonium, which can be extracted to make atomic weapons.”
In a joint New York Times Op Ed piece March 25, 2005 they point out, “Even assuming we can find a place to dispose of nuclear waste and deal with security risks - to meet expected America energy demands of the next fifty years would require 1,200 new nuclear plants in addition to the current 104 which would be one plant every two weeks until 2050”.
Nuclear is a low-carbon source of energy but it is too costly, centralized, and potentially dangerous to be a viable alternative to petroleum based energy sources therefore making decentralized renewable energy sources as the best option for development.
Homer Dixon suggests that we should think very much of a resilience enhancing strategies. In a treehugger.com interview he gave the example of the enormous energy blackout of 2003 only got us thinking about improving micro managing and tinkering with the grid. He points out, “But the idea of decentralized energy production, more off grid production, or the ability of individual communities and household to reduce their dependency on the grid was not raised at all”.
And this is where we should be going in Saskatchewan. Where is our new paradigm of thinking – our resilient enhancing strategies – that would take in all impacts, real costs, environmental and human safety concerns, long term sustainability through future generations?
I would argue it has to be in renewable energy strategies that build solutions on the mitigation side, the adaption side and in geo engineering.
And we can do this within a framework called distributive energy generation.
A key issue that has not received sufficient attention in the assessment of nuclear energy is that it requires that we concentrate the energy production into one very large entity, not only requiring very high levels of investment but also creating dependence on a single source. By comparison, the more distributed patterns of energy generation and delivery allowed by solar, wind and other methods can create a network of many independent sources and therefore a less vulnerable system. They also allow small communities to own and benefit from energy production. “Distributed energy generation (energy that is distributed close to the point of production) can deliver carbon reductions with greater security of supply of fuel at competitive cost. These benefits increase with scale, with benefits maximised at the community level (of 500 homes and above). There are also benefits to linking different types of users to distribute the demand load more efficiently. That means that any opportunities to maximise community benefit from new energy supplies and schemes must be considered.” http://www.sustainablecities.org.uk/ene ... ownership/
We did head down this road when Peter Prebble, former MLA, developed the Green Plan for the previous government. In the Green Plan he spoke very much to Saskatchewan’s real potential as a renewable energy supplier rather than a major carbon emissions emitter, and he envisaged a decentralized but linked alternative energy model.
Peter Prebble was able to persuade the government at that time to move on installing large scale wind power installations, permitting net metering and implemented grants aimed at promoting solar hot water, small scale wind and solar power, and other small renewable installations. An office of Energy Conservation was also established, a Climate Change Secretariat and a 320 million dollar Green Futures Fund.
We could continue on this path. Instead of investing huge amounts of money in the linear closed nuclear cycle we should build this province as a renewable distributive energy center.
Resilient and sustainable energy strategies could be pursued that would include:
1. Large scale wind turbines placed at key wind locations across the province. This could be linked to a rural community economic development program where communities invest in harvesting wind energy.
2. Wood chip industry electricity generation and district heating in forest fringe communities.
3. Solar water heating could be used all over for meeting hot water needs.
4. Solar energy could be used on individual buildings for space heating purposes and we can use solar energy, wood chips and waste heat to supply distinct heating systems in new subdivisions and in city downtowns.
5. A widespread application of solar photovoltaic technologies on new public buildings and other public institutions.
6. Make full use of geo thermal heating capacity.
7. Create the largest energy conservation program in the Canadian history.
Peter Prebble in his work on the Green Plan and other writings has spoken to these initiatives and underlined how energy conservation and efficiency should be treated as this province’s most cost effective opportunity for low emission electricity. As he has stated, “it should be viewed as a source of energy”.
Another key aspect would be the development of improved electric storage technology for intermittent renewable energy sources. This storage capacity could work at local, district and regional levels.
The investment in these renewable and distributive energy directions, rather than being funnelled further into the nuclear cycle, will in fact create the energy capacity that we can live within, that we can share in an alternative energy grid, and do our part in reducing the carbon emissions that is so critical.
Nicholas Stern talked very much of the crisis we are facing – 3 degree warming by 2040 and 5 degrees by the end of the century. The year 2100 will be a different world with temperatures and the attendant changes not seen since 30 to 50 million years ago. He argues that an investment of 2 per cent of our GDP into renewable energy right now could make a huge difference.
In Saskatchewan we should invest in the resilient, sustainable path.
We should develop within a new paradigm of renewable energy an economic and social policy that would allow a transition from uranium mining into renewable energy development.
We should not embark on building on or expanding the nuclear cycle in Saskatchewan. This would include not opening more uranium mines, not building uranium enrichment plants, and not building nuclear reactors such as the Bruce Power proposal. No uranium from Saskatchewan should go into any nuclear weaponry, and unsafe disposal of high level nuclear waste.
We in Saskatchewan have created a huge responsibility amongst ourselves with our uranium link but now it is time to de-link ourselves and seek a renewable, sustainable energy path that contributes to a more peaceful world.
Don Kossick
www.makingthelinksradio.ca
May 27th, 2009
Thanks for the opportunity to present today.
I am the producer of www.makingthelinksradio.ca which broadcasts on the internet and through community radio channels.
I have produced programs about nuclearization and the nuclear cycle. Making the Links Radio has broadcasted the voices of those in debate on the question, and those who would like to see a non nuclear renewable future for the world.
I think that history will prove that our only course of action for a sustainable world is the cultivating, harnessing and stewardship of renewable resources.
I recently visted my daughter Rosa Kouri who is an environment graduate student at Oxford University. When I was there she took me to hear two imminent climate change thinkers Thomas Homer-Dixon and Nicolas Stern. Nicholas Stern wrote the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate. Thomas Homer-Dixon has written the Ingenuity Gap, and The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization.
I was struck by their insights and the information that they gave.
Homer-Dixon talked about Uncertainty, Lags and Non Linearity. He says in “In a world of risk, we can judge dangers and opportunities by using the best evidence at hand to estimate the probability of a particular outcome. But in a world of uncertainty, we can’t estimate probabilities, because we don’t have any clear basis for making such a judgment. In fact, we might not even know what the possible outcomes are. Surprises keep coming out of the blue, because we’re fundamentally ignorant of our own ignorance. We’re surrounded by unknown unknowns.”
He pointed out how the recent economic collapse and recession are an example of this uncertainty. “No one really knows where the boundaries of the current problem lie, what new surprises are in store, or what measures will be truly adequate to stop the bleeding. “
If one applies the logic of Homer-Dixon’s thinking to the global climate crisis one has to be extremely precautionary about what avenues we would take to produce energy and reduce carbon emissions.
S. Julio Friedmann and Thomas Homer-Dixon article in [76] Foreign Affairs. Volume 83 No. 6 does not hold out nuclear power as the viable option. “Yet nuclear power is almost twice as expensive as fossil-fuel energy, and, like liquefied gas, it presents serious security risks. Nuclear power plants, especially breeder reactors, produce a lot of highly radioactive waste, chiefly plutonium. Scientists might eventually figure out how to safely store waste for the tens of thousands of years it takes to become innocuous, and politicians might be able to convince reluctant constituencies to accept living by it in the meantime. But such nuclear material could still be diverted or stolen and converted into bombs. As it is extremely toxic, terrorists could use it for radiological or “dirty” bombs, and it contains plutonium, which can be extracted to make atomic weapons.”
In a joint New York Times Op Ed piece March 25, 2005 they point out, “Even assuming we can find a place to dispose of nuclear waste and deal with security risks - to meet expected America energy demands of the next fifty years would require 1,200 new nuclear plants in addition to the current 104 which would be one plant every two weeks until 2050”.
Nuclear is a low-carbon source of energy but it is too costly, centralized, and potentially dangerous to be a viable alternative to petroleum based energy sources therefore making decentralized renewable energy sources as the best option for development.
Homer Dixon suggests that we should think very much of a resilience enhancing strategies. In a treehugger.com interview he gave the example of the enormous energy blackout of 2003 only got us thinking about improving micro managing and tinkering with the grid. He points out, “But the idea of decentralized energy production, more off grid production, or the ability of individual communities and household to reduce their dependency on the grid was not raised at all”.
And this is where we should be going in Saskatchewan. Where is our new paradigm of thinking – our resilient enhancing strategies – that would take in all impacts, real costs, environmental and human safety concerns, long term sustainability through future generations?
I would argue it has to be in renewable energy strategies that build solutions on the mitigation side, the adaption side and in geo engineering.
And we can do this within a framework called distributive energy generation.
A key issue that has not received sufficient attention in the assessment of nuclear energy is that it requires that we concentrate the energy production into one very large entity, not only requiring very high levels of investment but also creating dependence on a single source. By comparison, the more distributed patterns of energy generation and delivery allowed by solar, wind and other methods can create a network of many independent sources and therefore a less vulnerable system. They also allow small communities to own and benefit from energy production. “Distributed energy generation (energy that is distributed close to the point of production) can deliver carbon reductions with greater security of supply of fuel at competitive cost. These benefits increase with scale, with benefits maximised at the community level (of 500 homes and above). There are also benefits to linking different types of users to distribute the demand load more efficiently. That means that any opportunities to maximise community benefit from new energy supplies and schemes must be considered.” http://www.sustainablecities.org.uk/ene ... ownership/
We did head down this road when Peter Prebble, former MLA, developed the Green Plan for the previous government. In the Green Plan he spoke very much to Saskatchewan’s real potential as a renewable energy supplier rather than a major carbon emissions emitter, and he envisaged a decentralized but linked alternative energy model.
Peter Prebble was able to persuade the government at that time to move on installing large scale wind power installations, permitting net metering and implemented grants aimed at promoting solar hot water, small scale wind and solar power, and other small renewable installations. An office of Energy Conservation was also established, a Climate Change Secretariat and a 320 million dollar Green Futures Fund.
We could continue on this path. Instead of investing huge amounts of money in the linear closed nuclear cycle we should build this province as a renewable distributive energy center.
Resilient and sustainable energy strategies could be pursued that would include:
1. Large scale wind turbines placed at key wind locations across the province. This could be linked to a rural community economic development program where communities invest in harvesting wind energy.
2. Wood chip industry electricity generation and district heating in forest fringe communities.
3. Solar water heating could be used all over for meeting hot water needs.
4. Solar energy could be used on individual buildings for space heating purposes and we can use solar energy, wood chips and waste heat to supply distinct heating systems in new subdivisions and in city downtowns.
5. A widespread application of solar photovoltaic technologies on new public buildings and other public institutions.
6. Make full use of geo thermal heating capacity.
7. Create the largest energy conservation program in the Canadian history.
Peter Prebble in his work on the Green Plan and other writings has spoken to these initiatives and underlined how energy conservation and efficiency should be treated as this province’s most cost effective opportunity for low emission electricity. As he has stated, “it should be viewed as a source of energy”.
Another key aspect would be the development of improved electric storage technology for intermittent renewable energy sources. This storage capacity could work at local, district and regional levels.
The investment in these renewable and distributive energy directions, rather than being funnelled further into the nuclear cycle, will in fact create the energy capacity that we can live within, that we can share in an alternative energy grid, and do our part in reducing the carbon emissions that is so critical.
Nicholas Stern talked very much of the crisis we are facing – 3 degree warming by 2040 and 5 degrees by the end of the century. The year 2100 will be a different world with temperatures and the attendant changes not seen since 30 to 50 million years ago. He argues that an investment of 2 per cent of our GDP into renewable energy right now could make a huge difference.
In Saskatchewan we should invest in the resilient, sustainable path.
We should develop within a new paradigm of renewable energy an economic and social policy that would allow a transition from uranium mining into renewable energy development.
We should not embark on building on or expanding the nuclear cycle in Saskatchewan. This would include not opening more uranium mines, not building uranium enrichment plants, and not building nuclear reactors such as the Bruce Power proposal. No uranium from Saskatchewan should go into any nuclear weaponry, and unsafe disposal of high level nuclear waste.
We in Saskatchewan have created a huge responsibility amongst ourselves with our uranium link but now it is time to de-link ourselves and seek a renewable, sustainable energy path that contributes to a more peaceful world.
Don Kossick
www.makingthelinksradio.ca
May 27th, 2009
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
This Ain’t No Blue Cheese!
by Oscar » Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:04 am
This Ain’t No Blue Cheese!
Presentation by Elaine Hughes to UDP Public Consultation at Yorkton, SK on June 1, 2009
Chair: Dan Perrins
Good evening, Mr. Perrins. Thank you for granting my request to make this brief presentation to this gathering.
Good evening, friends and neighbours.
In this presentation, I’m not going to talk about the many concerns or questions we normally hear about regards uranium mining or nuclear power plants - things such as:
- How Saskatchewan lags far behind other provinces and countries in transition to conservation and renewable energy even though it is Canada’s top GHG polluter (due mostly to our coal-burning power plants);
- How 9-year old Saskatoon students, who obviously understand the need, have been designing and experimenting with blades for wind turbines;
- How a new government committee is busy working on ways to further weaken our environmental assessment process to make it easier for industry to regulate itself and get to the money faster;
- The billions of tax dollars needed to build nuclear power plants (often ending up twice the budgeted amount and taking several years longer to build than was predicted) – all to boil some water to produce steam to turn turbines to produce electricity – billions for which many future generations will pay long after the plant is decommissioned;
- The full-page city newspaper ads about how clean, cheap and safe nuclear power is, how much money the province will make, how many jobs will be created mining uranium;
- That the US is running out of water for hydro power so is eagerly awaiting export of our nuclear power, to say nothing of the oil from our tarsands, once we can access it;
- That the carbon capture ‘shell game’ simply allows polluters to carry on business as usual and will burden future generations in dealing with it;
- That the nifty new Hyperion Small-Scale Nuclear Reactors are really just large 5-year nuclear batteries - just 1.5 meters across, small enough to be transported by truck, train, or ship, buried underground and operable quickly. At the end of five years, they are returned to the manufacturer to be refuelled….. all without attracting any public attention at all;
- That the Premier is keen to partner with AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.) and now that the federal government has a plan to seek buyers for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s nuclear reactor business, and bring in private-sector management for AECL's problem-plagued Chalk River facility - who knows but what Sask may end up owning some of it;
- And, how, in it’s desire to develop a nuclear research ‘centre of excellence’ at the University of Saskatchewan, the Sask Party is working with the Idaho National Laboratory, which, before it recently barred access to its website, also claimed skills in research into nuclear weaponry;
- And, finally, that in the Chernobyl area, there will be no farming for 200 years; and, still, after 23 years since the explosion of nuclear reactor no. 4, 355 farmers 6000 km away in Wales have 200,000 sheep too radioactive to sell.
What I am going to talk about, however, is a topic which, strangely, continues to escape much examination – and that is the impact on human health of uranium mining and nuclear power plants.
With permission of the authors, Ontario physicians, Dr. Cathy Vakil and Dr. Linda Harvey, I will base the remainder of my presentation on their newly-released paper entitled “Human Health Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation”.
Ever since the discovery of radioactivity at the turn of the last century, it has been recognized that ionizing radiation has a deleterious impact on human health. Radiation damage can affect any part of the cell and can interfere with many cellular processes. Most importantly, damage to the genetic material of the cell can lead to cancer, birth defects and hereditary illness. It is generally accepted by the scientific community that there is no safe level of radiation exposure, and that any amount of exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful. (Ladies, remember having an X-ray and there was that little sign asking you to inform the Technician if you thought you were pregnant? The reason being, of course, that the radiation could harm your developing baby.)
From the extraction of uranium from rock formations, through the milling, refining, and enriching of uranium, to the operation of reactors, and the unsolved dilemma of what to do with spent fuel, there are major health effects at every stage of the nuclear fuel chain. Although it is widely accepted that there is no safe threshold for radiation exposure, low-level radiation emissions from nuclear facilities have not been considered a threat to human health.
There are enormous public health risks posed by the millions of tons of radioactive tailings from uranium mining, and the many thousands of tons of radioactive waste produced in reactors that will remain toxic for thousands of years, not to mention the danger of an accident or meltdown causing a catastrophic release of radioactive particles into the air, water and soil. The use of depleted uranium, which is still significantly radioactive, for munitions in areas of conflict leaves local civilians in these countries exposed to radioactive waste products for many years. This radioactive material will distribute itself around the globe, over time.
Given that the dissemination of contaminated material, particularly the long-lived radioisotopes, into the environment is essentially irreversible, and that these will remain toxic for thousands of years, a precautionary approach is advisable. Much genetic damage is irreversible, and may be cumulative, so this becomes doubly important.
There is mounting evidence that even very low levels of radiation exposure may have deleterious health effects over the long term, some of them serious. These are detectable in nuclear workers (many of them Indigenous people) and in the general population in the vicinity of nuclear installations (often in low income neighbourhoods). Some of these involve genetic material and may affect generations to come. Our understanding of the cellular processes affected by this damage, and the implications for the health of the affected individual and his/her descendents is far from complete.
However, a number of studies undertaken in the past two decades have shown worrisome links between low-level exposure to radiation and some serious illnesses, including childhood leukemia. Certainly any one study that has indicated a possible causal relationship could be dismissed as a chance finding, but the consistency of findings, especially with respect to childhood leukemia, across so many studies, is a cause for great concern. The preponderance of evidence in these studies, along with our previous knowledge of the relationship between cancer and radiation, should cause alarm amongst public health specialists and policy-makers.
The Canadian healthcare system is already straining with an aging population and rising cancer rates. Anything which increases this burden of illness and care must be avoided. In addition we, as Canadians, should also reconsider the huge expenditure of precious tax dollars on new and aging nuclear reactors when there are safer, cleaner energy alternatives. Money spent on nuclear reactors might be better spent on health care, other social programs, education, or on the development, production and distribution of renewable energy capabilities.
The material in this report should be of great concern, not just because of the significant health risks of all stages of the nuclear energy industry, but also because of the implications with respect to weapons of mass destruction and the risks of catastrophic accidents such as Chernobyl, as well as the devastating and permanent environmental damage this industry causes.
A number of health studies done worldwide and in Canada have uncovered some alarming links between chronic low-level radioactive emissions from nuclear reactors and cancer, especially childhood leukemia. Experts continue to claim that the radioactive emissions are too low to explain these cases. In 2008 the German KiKK study provided compelling evidence of an unequivocal positive relationship between a child’s risk of leukemia, and residential proximity to a nuclear power plant. This effect was consistent across all sixteen nuclear power plants in Germany meeting the researchers’ criteria for size and duration of operation, and was detectable as far as 50 km from the nuclear facility. A number of studies of nuclear facility workers have shown elevated risks of cancer.
Though there are relatively few Ontario studies on this subject, the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada (AECB) undertook several studies in 1989 and 1991 which found an increased prevalence of leukemia in children living near nuclear facilities. Another AECB study found higher rates of childhood leukemia corresponding to higher radiation exposure of fathers, the largest risk being associated with the fathers who worked in uranium mining. Because few of these findings reached statistical significance, possibly due to very small numbers, the authors claim that these could have been due to chance.
Other studies have found elevated rates of some congenital abnormalities including Down syndrome in proximity to some Ontario nuclear stations. These showed a relationship to tritium releases from the plant during the prenatal period, and to paternal radiation exposure. However, because numbers were again small, most results did not reach the level of statistical significance and were deemed to be due to chance.
The Radiation and Health in Durham Region Study, 2007 was an ecological study looking at a number of health outcomes in the vicinity of the Pickering and Darlington nuclear reactors. Authors found statistically significant increases in combined cancers, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, bladder cancer, multiple myeloma, leukemia and congenital neural tube defects. Rates of several other cancers and congenital diseases such as Down syndrome were also elevated, though the increase was not found to be statistically significant.
In summary, studies done in Europe and Great Britain, particularly the more recent ones with improved methodology and larger sample size, show evidence that there are increases in malignant and inheritable disease in the vicinities of nuclear facilities. Low-level radiation exposures remain a plausible cause of these effects. The Ontario studies, although smaller and often not reaching statistical significance, are consistent with studies done in other parts of the world, showing links between ionizing radiation and a number of health effects, especially childhood leukemia.
European Studies include:
- COMARE Studies in the UK which looked at children between 0 and 14 years old who developed cancer from 1969 to 1993 and who lived within a 25 kilometre radius of one of 28 nuclear facilities in the U.K. Their results show excesses of leukemia/NHL in 12 of the 28 locations, most very slightly increased, however with one of them over 2.3 times the expected number, 4 reaching statistical significance, and another almost so. With respect to solid tumours, 13 of the 28 facilities had higher rates, 4 of these reaching statistical significance.
- KiKK Study in Germany which looked at individual cases of leukemia between 1980 and 2003 living near one of 16 nuclear power plants and matching them with children with similar charactersits who did not have leukemia. Results showed an unequivocal postiive relationship between a child’s risk of being diagnosed with leukemia, and residential proximity to the nearest nuclear power plant.
Some Ontario Studies include:
· Childhood Leukemia around Canadian Nuclear Facilities, 1 and 2;
· Clarke et al., 1989, 1990, Occupational Exposure of Fathers to Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Leukemia in Offspring – A Case-Control Study;
· McLaughlin et al., 1992, Tritium Releases from the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and Birth Defects and Infant Mortality in Nearby Communities 1971-1988;
· Johnson and Rouleau, 1991, Risk of Congenital Anomalies in Children of Parents Occupationally Exposed to Low Level Ionizing Radiation;
· Green et al., 1997, Analysis of Mortality Among Canadian Nuclear Power Industry Workers After Chronic Low-Dose Exposure to Ionizing Radiation;
· Zablotska et al., 2004, and the Radiation and Health in Durham Region Study, 2007.
The upshot of the growing file of studies is that the link between radiation exposure and cancer is becoming increasingly clear, and the cellular mechanisms involved in this process are becoming better understood. However, we are only beginning to understand the genetic and trans-generational effects of radiation damage. Much of the long-lived radioactive contamination we are spreading into our environment now is essentially permanent and irreversible.
Aside from the health risks inherent in the process of producing energy from nuclear fission, perhaps the most daunting and significant health risk is the use of uranium and plutonium for weapons of mass destruction. With the end of the Cold War, the public has become complacent about the threat of a nuclear war, even though the risks are perhaps greater now than ever before.
They conclude with this statement: “We as family doctors are concerned about the public health risks of every stage of the nuclear industry.”
We are NOT talking about blue cheese here; we are talking about uranium - the most lethal substance on this planet, and I hope that this brief presentation will encourage you to do more research on this issue and that you will question why we are even talking about all of this. Why is the Precautionary Principle (which, simply put, states: if there’s the slightest doubt of causing harm – don’t do it!) being ignored in when it comes to what should always be our prime concern: protecting our health!
Can we not look past the money and think about what we’re actually doing?
For more detailed information, please pick up some of our Fact Sheets and talk to me at the end of the meeting.
Thank you.
Elaine Hughes
Email: tybach@sasktel.net
Presentation by Elaine Hughes to UDP Public Consultation at Yorkton, SK on June 1, 2009
Chair: Dan Perrins
Good evening, Mr. Perrins. Thank you for granting my request to make this brief presentation to this gathering.
Good evening, friends and neighbours.
In this presentation, I’m not going to talk about the many concerns or questions we normally hear about regards uranium mining or nuclear power plants - things such as:
- How Saskatchewan lags far behind other provinces and countries in transition to conservation and renewable energy even though it is Canada’s top GHG polluter (due mostly to our coal-burning power plants);
- How 9-year old Saskatoon students, who obviously understand the need, have been designing and experimenting with blades for wind turbines;
- How a new government committee is busy working on ways to further weaken our environmental assessment process to make it easier for industry to regulate itself and get to the money faster;
- The billions of tax dollars needed to build nuclear power plants (often ending up twice the budgeted amount and taking several years longer to build than was predicted) – all to boil some water to produce steam to turn turbines to produce electricity – billions for which many future generations will pay long after the plant is decommissioned;
- The full-page city newspaper ads about how clean, cheap and safe nuclear power is, how much money the province will make, how many jobs will be created mining uranium;
- That the US is running out of water for hydro power so is eagerly awaiting export of our nuclear power, to say nothing of the oil from our tarsands, once we can access it;
- That the carbon capture ‘shell game’ simply allows polluters to carry on business as usual and will burden future generations in dealing with it;
- That the nifty new Hyperion Small-Scale Nuclear Reactors are really just large 5-year nuclear batteries - just 1.5 meters across, small enough to be transported by truck, train, or ship, buried underground and operable quickly. At the end of five years, they are returned to the manufacturer to be refuelled….. all without attracting any public attention at all;
- That the Premier is keen to partner with AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.) and now that the federal government has a plan to seek buyers for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s nuclear reactor business, and bring in private-sector management for AECL's problem-plagued Chalk River facility - who knows but what Sask may end up owning some of it;
- And, how, in it’s desire to develop a nuclear research ‘centre of excellence’ at the University of Saskatchewan, the Sask Party is working with the Idaho National Laboratory, which, before it recently barred access to its website, also claimed skills in research into nuclear weaponry;
- And, finally, that in the Chernobyl area, there will be no farming for 200 years; and, still, after 23 years since the explosion of nuclear reactor no. 4, 355 farmers 6000 km away in Wales have 200,000 sheep too radioactive to sell.
What I am going to talk about, however, is a topic which, strangely, continues to escape much examination – and that is the impact on human health of uranium mining and nuclear power plants.
With permission of the authors, Ontario physicians, Dr. Cathy Vakil and Dr. Linda Harvey, I will base the remainder of my presentation on their newly-released paper entitled “Human Health Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation”.
Ever since the discovery of radioactivity at the turn of the last century, it has been recognized that ionizing radiation has a deleterious impact on human health. Radiation damage can affect any part of the cell and can interfere with many cellular processes. Most importantly, damage to the genetic material of the cell can lead to cancer, birth defects and hereditary illness. It is generally accepted by the scientific community that there is no safe level of radiation exposure, and that any amount of exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful. (Ladies, remember having an X-ray and there was that little sign asking you to inform the Technician if you thought you were pregnant? The reason being, of course, that the radiation could harm your developing baby.)
From the extraction of uranium from rock formations, through the milling, refining, and enriching of uranium, to the operation of reactors, and the unsolved dilemma of what to do with spent fuel, there are major health effects at every stage of the nuclear fuel chain. Although it is widely accepted that there is no safe threshold for radiation exposure, low-level radiation emissions from nuclear facilities have not been considered a threat to human health.
There are enormous public health risks posed by the millions of tons of radioactive tailings from uranium mining, and the many thousands of tons of radioactive waste produced in reactors that will remain toxic for thousands of years, not to mention the danger of an accident or meltdown causing a catastrophic release of radioactive particles into the air, water and soil. The use of depleted uranium, which is still significantly radioactive, for munitions in areas of conflict leaves local civilians in these countries exposed to radioactive waste products for many years. This radioactive material will distribute itself around the globe, over time.
Given that the dissemination of contaminated material, particularly the long-lived radioisotopes, into the environment is essentially irreversible, and that these will remain toxic for thousands of years, a precautionary approach is advisable. Much genetic damage is irreversible, and may be cumulative, so this becomes doubly important.
There is mounting evidence that even very low levels of radiation exposure may have deleterious health effects over the long term, some of them serious. These are detectable in nuclear workers (many of them Indigenous people) and in the general population in the vicinity of nuclear installations (often in low income neighbourhoods). Some of these involve genetic material and may affect generations to come. Our understanding of the cellular processes affected by this damage, and the implications for the health of the affected individual and his/her descendents is far from complete.
However, a number of studies undertaken in the past two decades have shown worrisome links between low-level exposure to radiation and some serious illnesses, including childhood leukemia. Certainly any one study that has indicated a possible causal relationship could be dismissed as a chance finding, but the consistency of findings, especially with respect to childhood leukemia, across so many studies, is a cause for great concern. The preponderance of evidence in these studies, along with our previous knowledge of the relationship between cancer and radiation, should cause alarm amongst public health specialists and policy-makers.
The Canadian healthcare system is already straining with an aging population and rising cancer rates. Anything which increases this burden of illness and care must be avoided. In addition we, as Canadians, should also reconsider the huge expenditure of precious tax dollars on new and aging nuclear reactors when there are safer, cleaner energy alternatives. Money spent on nuclear reactors might be better spent on health care, other social programs, education, or on the development, production and distribution of renewable energy capabilities.
The material in this report should be of great concern, not just because of the significant health risks of all stages of the nuclear energy industry, but also because of the implications with respect to weapons of mass destruction and the risks of catastrophic accidents such as Chernobyl, as well as the devastating and permanent environmental damage this industry causes.
A number of health studies done worldwide and in Canada have uncovered some alarming links between chronic low-level radioactive emissions from nuclear reactors and cancer, especially childhood leukemia. Experts continue to claim that the radioactive emissions are too low to explain these cases. In 2008 the German KiKK study provided compelling evidence of an unequivocal positive relationship between a child’s risk of leukemia, and residential proximity to a nuclear power plant. This effect was consistent across all sixteen nuclear power plants in Germany meeting the researchers’ criteria for size and duration of operation, and was detectable as far as 50 km from the nuclear facility. A number of studies of nuclear facility workers have shown elevated risks of cancer.
Though there are relatively few Ontario studies on this subject, the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada (AECB) undertook several studies in 1989 and 1991 which found an increased prevalence of leukemia in children living near nuclear facilities. Another AECB study found higher rates of childhood leukemia corresponding to higher radiation exposure of fathers, the largest risk being associated with the fathers who worked in uranium mining. Because few of these findings reached statistical significance, possibly due to very small numbers, the authors claim that these could have been due to chance.
Other studies have found elevated rates of some congenital abnormalities including Down syndrome in proximity to some Ontario nuclear stations. These showed a relationship to tritium releases from the plant during the prenatal period, and to paternal radiation exposure. However, because numbers were again small, most results did not reach the level of statistical significance and were deemed to be due to chance.
The Radiation and Health in Durham Region Study, 2007 was an ecological study looking at a number of health outcomes in the vicinity of the Pickering and Darlington nuclear reactors. Authors found statistically significant increases in combined cancers, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, bladder cancer, multiple myeloma, leukemia and congenital neural tube defects. Rates of several other cancers and congenital diseases such as Down syndrome were also elevated, though the increase was not found to be statistically significant.
In summary, studies done in Europe and Great Britain, particularly the more recent ones with improved methodology and larger sample size, show evidence that there are increases in malignant and inheritable disease in the vicinities of nuclear facilities. Low-level radiation exposures remain a plausible cause of these effects. The Ontario studies, although smaller and often not reaching statistical significance, are consistent with studies done in other parts of the world, showing links between ionizing radiation and a number of health effects, especially childhood leukemia.
European Studies include:
- COMARE Studies in the UK which looked at children between 0 and 14 years old who developed cancer from 1969 to 1993 and who lived within a 25 kilometre radius of one of 28 nuclear facilities in the U.K. Their results show excesses of leukemia/NHL in 12 of the 28 locations, most very slightly increased, however with one of them over 2.3 times the expected number, 4 reaching statistical significance, and another almost so. With respect to solid tumours, 13 of the 28 facilities had higher rates, 4 of these reaching statistical significance.
- KiKK Study in Germany which looked at individual cases of leukemia between 1980 and 2003 living near one of 16 nuclear power plants and matching them with children with similar charactersits who did not have leukemia. Results showed an unequivocal postiive relationship between a child’s risk of being diagnosed with leukemia, and residential proximity to the nearest nuclear power plant.
Some Ontario Studies include:
· Childhood Leukemia around Canadian Nuclear Facilities, 1 and 2;
· Clarke et al., 1989, 1990, Occupational Exposure of Fathers to Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Leukemia in Offspring – A Case-Control Study;
· McLaughlin et al., 1992, Tritium Releases from the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and Birth Defects and Infant Mortality in Nearby Communities 1971-1988;
· Johnson and Rouleau, 1991, Risk of Congenital Anomalies in Children of Parents Occupationally Exposed to Low Level Ionizing Radiation;
· Green et al., 1997, Analysis of Mortality Among Canadian Nuclear Power Industry Workers After Chronic Low-Dose Exposure to Ionizing Radiation;
· Zablotska et al., 2004, and the Radiation and Health in Durham Region Study, 2007.
The upshot of the growing file of studies is that the link between radiation exposure and cancer is becoming increasingly clear, and the cellular mechanisms involved in this process are becoming better understood. However, we are only beginning to understand the genetic and trans-generational effects of radiation damage. Much of the long-lived radioactive contamination we are spreading into our environment now is essentially permanent and irreversible.
Aside from the health risks inherent in the process of producing energy from nuclear fission, perhaps the most daunting and significant health risk is the use of uranium and plutonium for weapons of mass destruction. With the end of the Cold War, the public has become complacent about the threat of a nuclear war, even though the risks are perhaps greater now than ever before.
They conclude with this statement: “We as family doctors are concerned about the public health risks of every stage of the nuclear industry.”
We are NOT talking about blue cheese here; we are talking about uranium - the most lethal substance on this planet, and I hope that this brief presentation will encourage you to do more research on this issue and that you will question why we are even talking about all of this. Why is the Precautionary Principle (which, simply put, states: if there’s the slightest doubt of causing harm – don’t do it!) being ignored in when it comes to what should always be our prime concern: protecting our health!
Can we not look past the money and think about what we’re actually doing?
For more detailed information, please pick up some of our Fact Sheets and talk to me at the end of the meeting.
Thank you.
Elaine Hughes
Email: tybach@sasktel.net
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
UDP Hearings: Dan Perrins - What I've Heard
by Oscar » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:20 pm
UDP Hearings: What I've Heard - Dan Perrins
http://saskuranium.ca/Default.aspx?DN=7 ... &l=English
This is what I've heard from my meetings with stakeholders and the public, as well as through written submissions from stakeholders/organization and the public.
Invited Stakeholder Conference
http://saskuranium.ca/Default.aspx?DN=3 ... &l=English
Stakeholder/Organization Submissions
http://saskuranium.ca/Default.aspx?DN=9 ... &l=English
Public Consultation Meetings
http://saskuranium.ca/Default.aspx?DN=e ... &l=English
http://saskuranium.ca/Default.aspx?DN=7 ... &l=English
This is what I've heard from my meetings with stakeholders and the public, as well as through written submissions from stakeholders/organization and the public.
Invited Stakeholder Conference
http://saskuranium.ca/Default.aspx?DN=3 ... &l=English
Stakeholder/Organization Submissions
http://saskuranium.ca/Default.aspx?DN=9 ... &l=English
Public Consultation Meetings
http://saskuranium.ca/Default.aspx?DN=e ... &l=English
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Yorkton, Sask., public offers input on uranium proposals
by Oscar » Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:18 am
Yorkton, Sask., public offers input on uranium proposals
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/s ... rings.html
Last Updated: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 | 11:42 AM CT
CBC News
After companies and interest groups got their say on Saskatchewan's possible nuclear future last week, now the public is getting to put its two cents in.
The first of what will be 10 meetings to discuss a major report suggesting nuclear power should be part of Saskatchewan's energy mix was held Monday night in Yorkton.
The Uranium Development Partnership report, released in April, also looks at other ways of expanding the nuclear industry. Saskatchewan is a world leader in uranium production, but the province currently doesn't refine the radioactive mineral or have any nuclear power plants.
The series of meetings being held this month is designed to collect opinions, but some in attendance Monday night said they thought the tone was a little too pro-nuclear for their tastes.
Among them was Frances Thauberger, who indicated she was not impressed after watching a videotaped presentation from Uranium Development Partnership chair Richard Florizone. She also heard remarks from Dan Perrins, the former senior civil servant who's the chair of the consultation process.
Thauberger got some applause when she said people were not being shown the potential risks of nuclear power in the official presentations.
Another person in the audience was Catherine Cox, 88, who had travelled from Grenfell and said she was left with unanswered questions.
"I think we should have been able to ask questions of the people who are involved, the two people that gave the presentation," she said.
School teacher Danny Jewitt was skeptical of the process, saying he thinks the consultations will have no bearing on the final outcome.
"It seems like a lot of the ideas are already underway and its just basically asking us what part of yes are you down with," he said.
Jewitt said he'd like to see the province embrace renewable energy rather than nuclear power.
The next public consultation is Tuesday in Estevan.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/s ... rings.html
Last Updated: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 | 11:42 AM CT
CBC News
After companies and interest groups got their say on Saskatchewan's possible nuclear future last week, now the public is getting to put its two cents in.
The first of what will be 10 meetings to discuss a major report suggesting nuclear power should be part of Saskatchewan's energy mix was held Monday night in Yorkton.
The Uranium Development Partnership report, released in April, also looks at other ways of expanding the nuclear industry. Saskatchewan is a world leader in uranium production, but the province currently doesn't refine the radioactive mineral or have any nuclear power plants.
The series of meetings being held this month is designed to collect opinions, but some in attendance Monday night said they thought the tone was a little too pro-nuclear for their tastes.
Among them was Frances Thauberger, who indicated she was not impressed after watching a videotaped presentation from Uranium Development Partnership chair Richard Florizone. She also heard remarks from Dan Perrins, the former senior civil servant who's the chair of the consultation process.
Thauberger got some applause when she said people were not being shown the potential risks of nuclear power in the official presentations.
Another person in the audience was Catherine Cox, 88, who had travelled from Grenfell and said she was left with unanswered questions.
"I think we should have been able to ask questions of the people who are involved, the two people that gave the presentation," she said.
School teacher Danny Jewitt was skeptical of the process, saying he thinks the consultations will have no bearing on the final outcome.
"It seems like a lot of the ideas are already underway and its just basically asking us what part of yes are you down with," he said.
Jewitt said he'd like to see the province embrace renewable energy rather than nuclear power.
The next public consultation is Tuesday in Estevan.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
UDP Gets Hostile Reception in Regina
by Oscar » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:13 am
UDP Gets Hostile Reception in Regina
http://www.actupinsask.org/content/view/698/1/
Contributed by John W. Warnock
Friday, 05 June 2009
Around 400 people turned out for the most recent consultation meeting sponsored by the Uranium Development Partnership. The large majority, by show of hands, were opposed to the UDP proposals to expand the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan, including the building of up to 3,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity.
As at previous meetings, there was strong support for the creation of an independent commission to study all possible future sources of energy supply and use. Concern was expressed that nuclear power was not only the most dangerous energy but also the most expensive. No nuclear power plants have been built without massive financial support from the taxpayers.
The pro-nuke view
The meeting started with a video from Sask Power outlining their projection of energy needs for the future. They expect demand to double in the next few years. Thus there are plans to spend $8 billion to replace aging coal fired plants and build additional supply facilities over the next ten years.
This was followed by a second video, a presentation by Dr. Richard Florizone, chair of the UDP and a nuclear physicist, which summarized the panel’s recommendations. The UDP report, which is available on their web site, is not a balanced assessment of energy needs and different options but is an advocacy brief for the nuclear industry.
The majority spoke out
The meeting then requested that someone who opposed the panel’s recommendations be allowed to reply. Ingrid Alesich of the Regina chapter of the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan summarized the case against nuclear power.
From 9 until 11:15 p.m. people took turns at the microphones giving their five minute response to the UDP report. The views expressed ranged from the technical aspects of nukes and alternative energy to general political statements.
Why are we exporting our highly toxic uranium and poisoning people and the environment around the world? Why does no one care that in Saskatchewan the people most impacted by the industry are Aboriginal people living in the North? Why should we export energy to Alberta to help them develop the tar sands which is currently the greatest environmental disaster in the world? Why can’t our elected government lead the way in finding ways to reduce energy consumption? These are among the many fundamental questions that were asked but have been consistently ignored by Saskatchewan governments over the years.
The role of Sask Power
Anyone who has done any research on energy supply and use knows that the cheapest and quickest way to deal with new energy demand is conservation. Many jurisdictions around the world are putting a first priority on retrofitting older buildings, demanding higher standards of energy conservation and efficiency in new homes and buildings, and introducing demand management systems. But not Sask Power. Not a mention of this first choice alternative in their video.
Sask Power has never supported a serious energy conservation program as this would reduce sales and income. For the same reason, it is not promoting net metering for households, businesses and communities, which would encourage individuals and towns to build their own alternative energy systems. I have seen this successfully operated in the United States, and it is a requirement for the development of wind and solar energy.
The move around the world is towards decentralization of energy production and use. It makes enormous sense in the era of climate change. But not in Saskatchewan. Sask Power rules, an entity outside the democratic control of the people it is supposed to serve.
The public consultation process is demonstrating that there is strong opposition to the plan to build nukes and expand the uranium industry in Saskatchewan. I am sure this will be central to the report by Dan Perrins. But does anyone think this will change the mind of the government?
There is one positive aspect to this completely flawed process represented by the Uranium Development Partnership. It reveals the profoundly anti-democratic nature of our present political system. And it has managed to get a bunch of people, particularly young people, back into the political arena.
John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and long time environmental activist.
http://www.actupinsask.org/content/view/698/1/
Contributed by John W. Warnock
Friday, 05 June 2009
Around 400 people turned out for the most recent consultation meeting sponsored by the Uranium Development Partnership. The large majority, by show of hands, were opposed to the UDP proposals to expand the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan, including the building of up to 3,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity.
As at previous meetings, there was strong support for the creation of an independent commission to study all possible future sources of energy supply and use. Concern was expressed that nuclear power was not only the most dangerous energy but also the most expensive. No nuclear power plants have been built without massive financial support from the taxpayers.
The pro-nuke view
The meeting started with a video from Sask Power outlining their projection of energy needs for the future. They expect demand to double in the next few years. Thus there are plans to spend $8 billion to replace aging coal fired plants and build additional supply facilities over the next ten years.
This was followed by a second video, a presentation by Dr. Richard Florizone, chair of the UDP and a nuclear physicist, which summarized the panel’s recommendations. The UDP report, which is available on their web site, is not a balanced assessment of energy needs and different options but is an advocacy brief for the nuclear industry.
The majority spoke out
The meeting then requested that someone who opposed the panel’s recommendations be allowed to reply. Ingrid Alesich of the Regina chapter of the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan summarized the case against nuclear power.
From 9 until 11:15 p.m. people took turns at the microphones giving their five minute response to the UDP report. The views expressed ranged from the technical aspects of nukes and alternative energy to general political statements.
Why are we exporting our highly toxic uranium and poisoning people and the environment around the world? Why does no one care that in Saskatchewan the people most impacted by the industry are Aboriginal people living in the North? Why should we export energy to Alberta to help them develop the tar sands which is currently the greatest environmental disaster in the world? Why can’t our elected government lead the way in finding ways to reduce energy consumption? These are among the many fundamental questions that were asked but have been consistently ignored by Saskatchewan governments over the years.
The role of Sask Power
Anyone who has done any research on energy supply and use knows that the cheapest and quickest way to deal with new energy demand is conservation. Many jurisdictions around the world are putting a first priority on retrofitting older buildings, demanding higher standards of energy conservation and efficiency in new homes and buildings, and introducing demand management systems. But not Sask Power. Not a mention of this first choice alternative in their video.
Sask Power has never supported a serious energy conservation program as this would reduce sales and income. For the same reason, it is not promoting net metering for households, businesses and communities, which would encourage individuals and towns to build their own alternative energy systems. I have seen this successfully operated in the United States, and it is a requirement for the development of wind and solar energy.
The move around the world is towards decentralization of energy production and use. It makes enormous sense in the era of climate change. But not in Saskatchewan. Sask Power rules, an entity outside the democratic control of the people it is supposed to serve.
The public consultation process is demonstrating that there is strong opposition to the plan to build nukes and expand the uranium industry in Saskatchewan. I am sure this will be central to the report by Dan Perrins. But does anyone think this will change the mind of the government?
There is one positive aspect to this completely flawed process represented by the Uranium Development Partnership. It reveals the profoundly anti-democratic nature of our present political system. And it has managed to get a bunch of people, particularly young people, back into the political arena.
John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and long time environmental activist.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Will UDP Consultations Enable The Public’s Voice To Be Heard
by Oscar » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Will UDP Consultations Enable The Public’s Voice To Be Heard?
http://forum.stopthehogs.com/phpBB2/vie ... =1360#1360
By Jim Harding
Saskatchewan Sustainability - R-Town News - June 5, 2009
Public consultations about the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) started with Saskatoon stakeholder meetings May 27th and 28th. It’s too bad no one from the Sask Party government was there to listen. Only presentations from nuclear companies, and organizations associated with the UDP, supported the UDP’s recommendations. Others were critical and called for non-nuclear, renewable energy options. Saskatoon media living in a “pronuclear PR bubble” seemed surprised that 27 of the 31 presentations wanted non-nuclear options.
It’s notable that non-nuclear sentiment was so strong in the city that headquarters the uranium giant Cameco. Consultation Chair, Dan Perrins, may find himself between a rock and a hard place as this trend continued at Yorkton, Estevan, Swift Current and Regina meetings. In his letter inviting public participation he said he’ll “…lead an independent consultation process, focused on the recommendations made by the UDP”, while stressing that he’s “not to be an advocate for the UDP report, but to provide opportunities for Saskatchewan people to share their feedback.” The process, however, is backwards for it forces people who support non-nuclear options to do this by way of criticizing the pronuclear UDP report. It would have been better to have an open inquiry, about all energy options, in the first place.
The consultation also has a limited mandate. The Terms of Reference given April 8th by Minister Lyle Stewart say that Perrins is to review “all written submissions from stakeholders and individuals” and to summarize “public input and feedback from stakeholders and citizens gathered through the Public Consultation Process.” If Perrins does this in an accurate and professional manner he’ll have to report the criticisms of the nuclear industry and indicate the magnitude of support for renewable energy. Yet the Terms of reference say Perrin “is not an advocate for or against the key findings or recommendations contained in the UDP Report”, and “will not make recommendations for further action …except to recommend further public consultations…”
Are Perrin’s hands therefore tied? Even after holding public meetings to find out what the grass-roots thinks of the pronuclear UDP, Perrins won’t be able to recommend on matters of energy policy, which is what these meetings are about. Also, the Workbook where people write comments on UDP recommendations is totally open-ended and the magnitude of non-nuclear views can easily be obscured.
It looks like the Sask Party government wants to appear to give the public a chance to comment on the UDP, but isn’t that interested in what people say. Prior to forming the UDP, in a September 2008 interview with the engineering and geoscientist journal, The Professional Edge, Minister Cheveldayoff said, “Part of the business plan for nuclear power in Saskatchewan would definitely have to include the export of power. We are talking to business partners and other provinces about the feasibility of that.” Below he continued, “…if we were to export power we’d have to upgrade the external lines as well. How much would that cost and would it be worth it? Those are some of the questions we’ll ask Bruce Power.”
Clearly the decision to partner with Bruce Power to consider a private nuclear power export industry was in the works before the UDP even existed. Because of growing public pressure to democratize energy policy, the Sask Party government created this public consultation process, but it is so restrictive that a widespread call for non-nuclear options could be ignored.
The billion dollar question is: will the grass-roots find a way to make their voices heard?
Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies and writes a column "Saskatchewan Sustainability" for the weekly R-Town News chain.
http://forum.stopthehogs.com/phpBB2/vie ... =1360#1360
By Jim Harding
Saskatchewan Sustainability - R-Town News - June 5, 2009
Public consultations about the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) started with Saskatoon stakeholder meetings May 27th and 28th. It’s too bad no one from the Sask Party government was there to listen. Only presentations from nuclear companies, and organizations associated with the UDP, supported the UDP’s recommendations. Others were critical and called for non-nuclear, renewable energy options. Saskatoon media living in a “pronuclear PR bubble” seemed surprised that 27 of the 31 presentations wanted non-nuclear options.
It’s notable that non-nuclear sentiment was so strong in the city that headquarters the uranium giant Cameco. Consultation Chair, Dan Perrins, may find himself between a rock and a hard place as this trend continued at Yorkton, Estevan, Swift Current and Regina meetings. In his letter inviting public participation he said he’ll “…lead an independent consultation process, focused on the recommendations made by the UDP”, while stressing that he’s “not to be an advocate for the UDP report, but to provide opportunities for Saskatchewan people to share their feedback.” The process, however, is backwards for it forces people who support non-nuclear options to do this by way of criticizing the pronuclear UDP report. It would have been better to have an open inquiry, about all energy options, in the first place.
The consultation also has a limited mandate. The Terms of Reference given April 8th by Minister Lyle Stewart say that Perrins is to review “all written submissions from stakeholders and individuals” and to summarize “public input and feedback from stakeholders and citizens gathered through the Public Consultation Process.” If Perrins does this in an accurate and professional manner he’ll have to report the criticisms of the nuclear industry and indicate the magnitude of support for renewable energy. Yet the Terms of reference say Perrin “is not an advocate for or against the key findings or recommendations contained in the UDP Report”, and “will not make recommendations for further action …except to recommend further public consultations…”
Are Perrin’s hands therefore tied? Even after holding public meetings to find out what the grass-roots thinks of the pronuclear UDP, Perrins won’t be able to recommend on matters of energy policy, which is what these meetings are about. Also, the Workbook where people write comments on UDP recommendations is totally open-ended and the magnitude of non-nuclear views can easily be obscured.
It looks like the Sask Party government wants to appear to give the public a chance to comment on the UDP, but isn’t that interested in what people say. Prior to forming the UDP, in a September 2008 interview with the engineering and geoscientist journal, The Professional Edge, Minister Cheveldayoff said, “Part of the business plan for nuclear power in Saskatchewan would definitely have to include the export of power. We are talking to business partners and other provinces about the feasibility of that.” Below he continued, “…if we were to export power we’d have to upgrade the external lines as well. How much would that cost and would it be worth it? Those are some of the questions we’ll ask Bruce Power.”
Clearly the decision to partner with Bruce Power to consider a private nuclear power export industry was in the works before the UDP even existed. Because of growing public pressure to democratize energy policy, the Sask Party government created this public consultation process, but it is so restrictive that a widespread call for non-nuclear options could be ignored.
The billion dollar question is: will the grass-roots find a way to make their voices heard?
Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies and writes a column "Saskatchewan Sustainability" for the weekly R-Town News chain.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
THE "WHY" OF THE PROPOSED NUCLEAR REACTORS IN SASK
by Oscar » Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:18 pm
THE "WHY" OF THE PROPOSED NUCLEAR REACTORS IN SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA
Submission to UDP Consultation
Organization: Sandra Finley Email Network
Presenter: Sandra Finley, Saskatoon
May 28, 2009 3:00 pm Prairie Land Exhibition Park, Hall E in Saskatoon
If citizens understand WHY the reactors are to be built, we can better assess whether they will be built.
It is ultimately citizens who will decide whether reactors will be built in Saskatchewan and in Alberta.
CONTENTS
1. CONTEXT
A. THE DEMAND SIDE FOR ELECTRICITY (ELECTRICITY EXPORT)
WESTERN U.S., LOOMING WATER SHORTAGE, LOSS OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC CAPACITY HOOVER, GLEN CANYON DAMS
B. THE CONNECTION TO PEAK OIL. NUCLEAR NECESSITY FOR TAR SANDS PRODUCTION.
C. A RESPONSE THAT ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM OF RESOURCE DEPLETION
2. ASPECTS OF GOVERNANCE THAT ARE DRIVING THE NUCLEAR DECISION
A. CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST
RICHARD FLORIZONE, WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS
B. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS. BUT BRAD WALL HAS ALREADY TOLD WASHINGTON . . .
C. MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE, INTEGRATION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN POWER GRID
D. MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE, CEO'S WORKING WITH HEADS-OF-STATE TO BY-PASS CITIZEN CONTROL
E. THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
F. IGNORE YOUR OWN RESOURCE DEPLETION, COVET YOUR NEIGHBOUR'S
G. THE PETRO-STATE. DWAIN LINGENFELTER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF NEXEN OIL & GAS IS NOW THE LEADER OF THE “OPPOSITION” NDP PARTY IN SASKATCHEWAN
3. "INNUMERABLE MORE PROBLEMS"
A. USING NUCLEAR TO STAY ON FOSSIL FUELS, CITIZENS INVESTING IN OBSOLETE INDUSTRIES
B. THE ANALOGY OF THE DRUG ADDICT
C. NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR MORE TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENT WILL FINISH OFF NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN
D. EXPERIENCE WITH PRIVATIZED ELECTRICITY SALES, THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS IN 2000
4. IN CONCLUSION
5. APPENDED
A. CONVERSATION
i. SITUATION IN THE WESTERN STATES
ii. SIMON REISMAN ON MONEY TO BE MADE, CANADA'S WATER (ELECTRICITY)
iii. LINE FROM A LIFE-RAFT TO THE TITANIC
B. THE MATL HIGH POWER TRANSMISSION LINE, LETHBRIDGE TO USA, APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
C. SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY. CONNECTION TO UNIVERSITY CENTRE OF NUCLEAR STUDIES AND EXPORT ELECTRICITY TO THE U.S.
Other people have addressed aspects of the nuclear/uranium question extremely well.
I address just two, but very important aspects:
1. The broader picture or CONTEXT in which the citizens of Saskatchewan will make their decisions on nuclear and uranium development.
2. Aspects of GOVERNANCE that affect the nuclear decision.
Before the citizens of Saskatchewan make their decision on nuclear and uranium development, it is helpful to know WHY Bruce Power, Cameco, Areva, the University and the Government want to build nuclear reactors in the Province and a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University.
What are the conditions that make it desirable to build? (these are business decisions)
The answers lie in understanding the context and some aspects of governance. Let me lay some of that out.
It makes it clear why I strongly support investment in energy conservation and renewable energy supplies. The road to nuclear would be, at best, a backward and extremely expensive step for the people of Saskatchewan to choose.
I make a specific recommendation:
The people of Saskatchewan (the Government and the University) should NOT proceed with a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan.
If the University accepts money from Cameco, Areva and Bruce Power, Westinghouse or other corporate interests for a Nuclear Studies Centre, it will have further tarnished a once-valuable reputation for bona fide education, “science”, creativity and research in the public interest.
The people of Saskatchewan would be far better served by a Centre to Study the corporatization of Government and of the University, the myth of democratic government. It is clear from the abounding conflicts-of-interest, that well-placed persons in Saskatchewan have no grasp of what is right and expected in a democracy.
Alternately, in the public interest, if there is to be new funding of ANY new centre at the University it should be one related to conservation and renewable energy sources.
So what about CONTEXT, the conditions that make it desirable from a business perspective, to build nuclear power reactors?
I zero in on the EXPORT aspect of the electricity.
My input is in reference to the UDP Report, Executive Summary:
Under “Power Generation”:
Item t.
“Initial examination suggests that up to approximately 3,000 MW of nuclear capacity could be constructed to meet Saskatchewan's power needs and capture EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES.”
And from the Recommendations in the UDP Report:
“ - Considering the development, in coordination with Alberta, of a common power generation solution for the two Provinces by pooling their power needs and building stronger interties between the two provincial grids.
- Evaluating the type of grid, reserve, and intertie upgrades required under both a domestic and an EXPORT POWER generation scenario . . . "
Regarding export, the feed of electricity from nuclear power plants in Saskatchewan onto the Alberta grid: we should know that private interests intend to build what is called the MATL (Montana Alberta Tie Ltd) high power transmission line from Lethbridge south into Montana.(i) The current court challenges by citizens in Alberta to the MATL line will most likely appeal the recent Federal Court decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Koren Melsted sent me an email on May 8th, 2009 which reads, "So talking to some Sask Power people I found out that they're working on strengthening the grid straight south, so that we could sell power to (I assume) Montana, and North Dakota. ... "
My response to Koren was: See Joe Anglin’s email. He explains the situation in Alberta with building the grid straight south. The situation here is parallel. And it is all parallel to what is currently happening in B.C. The need for electricity and water, especially in the western States is almost beyond remedy. ...
According to the Saskatchewan UDP Report the “export” electricity from nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan is destined for Alberta. But Bruce Power is also trying to build nuclear reactors in Alberta.
What's behind the talk by Brad Wall, Lyle Stewart (now taken over by Cabinet Minister Bill Boyd), Richard Florizone, Cameco, Areva and Bruce Power, of the need for nuclear reactors to meet Saskatchewan's increasing need for electricity? What is the context?
1. CONTEXT
A. THE DEMAND SIDE FOR ELECTRICITY (ELECTRICITY EXPORT)
WESTERN U.S., LOOMING WATER SHORTAGE, LOSS OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC CAPACITY HOOVER, GLEN CANYON DAMS
Because of steadily declining water levels, the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams on the Colorado River have a 50/50 chance of losing their electric power generating capacity by 2017. Eight years away. That is monumental. Those are the two largest man-made reservoirs in the United States. They provide water and electricity for human, industrial and irrigation activity for twenty-five million Americans in parts of Nevada, Arizona, California, for a population approaching that of Canada. The water goes by aquaduct to LasVegas, Los Angele, San Diego, and other communities. I don’t know how far afield the electricity goes.
THE STUDY ON LAKE MEAD (behind the Hoover Dam) February, 2008
Reported for example, by:
Environmental News Wire Service
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008 ... 12-095.asp
National Geographic News
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/
2008/02/080213-AP-lake-mead.html
There's a 50-50 chance that the Arizona- and Nevada-bordering, human-made Lake Mead could become Dry Ditch Mead by 2021, according to a study to be published in the journal Water Resources Research. Oh, and that's a conservative estimate, say the study authors, as is this one: By 2017, there's an equally good chance that water levels in the reservoir could drop so low that the Hoover Dam would be incapable of producing hydroelectric power. Study coauthor Tim Barnett says he was "stunned at the magnitude of the problem and how fast it is coming at us." The study recommends that officials implement conservation and mitigation policies and technologies.
Or: Further research in February 2008 by the University of California in San Diego (Scripps Institution of Oceanography) led researchers to conclude that, if future climate changes as projected and water use "is not curtailed," Lake Mead's water level could drop below the dead storage elevation by 2021, and that the reservoir could drop below minimum power pool elevation as early as 2017. *4+”
On May 25, 2009 I looked for updates on the situation and found this: “as of May 2009, the lake (Mead) is currently at 43 percent of its capacity, threatening to make the Las Vegas valley's primary raw water intake inoperable. If the lake doesn't receive enough inflow this spring, problems may arise later this summer.[2] Arrangements are underway to pipe water from elsewhere in Nevada by 2011, but since the primary raw water intake at Lake Mead could become inoperable as soon as 2010 based on current drought and user projections, Las Vegas could suffer crippling water shortages in the interim.[2] Lake Mead draws a majority of its water from snow melt in the Western Colorado Rockies. Since 2000 the water level has been dropping at a fairly steady rate due to less than average snowfall. As a result, marinas and boat launch ramps have either needed to be moved to another part of the lake or have closed down completely.[3]”
This report does not distinguish between snow melt and the glaciers, a summer-time feed of water into the River that is disappearing. The National Water Research Institute in Canada established in 2003 that we are past “peak flow” off the glaciers that feed the North Saskatchewan River. It will be the same for the Colorado River that feeds these two dams.
I drove along some of the shoreline of Lake Powell behind the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River, a number of years ago and was astonished by the marinas that are high on dry banks of the Lake.
The Alternet Report, June 6 2009, confirms the gravity of the situation, quoting the Secretary of Energy in the Obama Administration:
http://www.alternet.org/water/140487/ca ... od_supply/
"I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen. We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California. I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going," Steven Chu told the Los Angeles Times in February, shortly after taking office in January. "I'm hoping that the American people will wake up," he added, just in case there was any confusion about the gravity of the situation.”
As part of this update on the Feb 2008 report, I telephoned Tim Barnett on May 25th. He is a scientist from the University of California at San Diego, a co-author of the Lake Mead report. Is he aware of any change in the situation? What are the current prospects for continuing electrical power generation from the Dams?
Nothing he had to say was encouraging. Lake Mead water levels started to decline in the late 1990’s. By this fall they are expected to be at the lowest level since the dam started to fill. When the elevation above sea level of the water surface gets down to around 1050 feet, hydro-electric power generation will stop (this year, water levels are 44 feet above that level). The current rate of overdraft is 2,000,000 acre feet per year (that is 1,000,000 acre feet for Lake Mead and 1,000,000 acre feet for Lake Powell). And we know that in Nature, these declines do not happen in linear fashion.
Tim Barnett said there is remarkable agreement in the climate change models: the reduction in run-off from the glaciers is expected to be 10 to 30% per year. That is bad news for the Colorado River and its capacity for hydro-electric power generation. It is equally bad news for the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers.
Americans (and Canadians) are belatedly addressing climate change and water conservation.
The relevant point for the discussion of building nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan to export electricity is CONTEXT: the electrical energy supply in the western U.S. is precarious because of depletion of the water resource.
In all this doom and gloom there is … what? … Great opportunities to make a lot of money selling electricity to the United States. And there’s more money to be made selling water to them, whether real or virtual as happens when you export products that take a lot of water in the making.
Saskatchewanians need to understand the context that makes the construction of nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan and in Alberta so attractive. The push is on because of the electricity/water resource crisis in the U.S. and because, as explained in the second item I will address under “CONTEXT”, nuclear power is required in tar sands production which is the consequence of running ourselves out of cheap conventional supplies of oil and gas.
It is for the people of Saskatchewan to decide whether they want to build nuclear reactors and power transmission lines so that the investors in Bruce Power can make a lot of money from crisis situations. It is for us to look over the horizon to see where WE will be if we haven't invested massively in conservation and renewable energy sources for ourselves. We should have been doing that long before today.
Taking advantage of crisis situations related to electricity and water supplies today is exactly the same phenomenon as IBM and other corporations that made huge profits during the crisis of World War Two. IBM knew what Hitler was doing. And yet IBM supplied the mechanized data sorting that made it possible for the Nazis to do what they did. If you think that Bruce Power's interest in nuclear reactors contains ANY consideration for what makes sense for the people of Saskatchewan, you are terribly naïve. If you think that there aren't collaborators in Government and in the University, you are equally naïve. This is about making money from crisis rather than doing effective problem-solving in the public interest.
Other presenters will address the question of whether there is enough water in the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers to meet the needs of people here. They will no doubt present the Rosenberg Report which reviewed Alberta’s Water for Life strategy. That Report strongly advises against the development of industries that affect the limited and projected-to-be-declining water supply on the prairies.
Those two rivers, the North and South Saskatchewan are the backbone of the water supply in this province. We are more vulnerable than Alberta because we are downstream, much further from the source. We have little actual control over Alberta’s use of upstream and upwind water and air. Tar Sands development and the refineries on the North Saskatchewan River in Edmonton teach us well. And the fact that the South Saskatchewan River is overdrawn on the Alberta side, that Alberta meets its cross border water agreement because it is allowed to use water from the Red Deer River system to compensate, tells us further of our vulnerability.
So we have large corporate interests at work to take advantage of opportunities. Crisis creates opportunities. Corporate law dictates that the corporation makes money for shareholders. You can see the investors jumping on the gravy train.
There is only one obstacle and that is the willingness of the people of Saskatchewan (and Alberta) to agree to the plan.
This first item under CONTEXT was to explain one of the reasons behind the drive to build nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan and Alberta: the drying up of the hydro-electric power generation capability that accompanies the dwindling flows in the Colorado River, in short, the electricity crisis in the western U.S.
Citizens in the U.S. are working on conservation and alternative energy sources, just as the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta are doing. Effective problem solving. Left to their creativity and we to ours, we will work together and find solutions.
But there is this layer over top and between citizens and the Government. That corporate layer which includes other influential people, gets us into trouble. They are people who measure their self-worth in terms of money. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, for example. It is an intervening layer of decision-makers that profit from taking the resources of other people, that creates the problems.
There is a second element of CONTEXT that needs to be understood in the nuclear equation.
B. THE CONNECTION TO PEAK OIL. NUCLEAR NECESSITY FOR TAR SANDS PRODUCTION.
The global economy is highly dependent upon cheap oil which means our economy works when there are so-called “conventional” supplies of oil and gas. We know with certainty that those supplies are dwindling fast; we wouldn’t be putting gas from the tar sands into our tanks if this was not so.
Instead of an all-out effort to get off fossil fuels, the Government and industry are mired in the money of the oil and gas industry. The push is on to develop the tar sands on the Saskatchewan side of the border. They have to have a large supply of electricity in order to do that. The technology involves gigantic electrical diodes that would be inserted deep down where the Saskatchewan tar sands are found. The underground would have to be heated for three or more years to get the tar to the point where it would flow and therefore be collectible. Can you imagine how much electricity it would take?
So that’s the second element of context that Saskatchewanians should understand.
Half of the answer to the question of “WHY” nuclear reactors is: resource depletion (water for electricity and the exhaustion of oil and gas supplies) leads to crisis leads to opportunities to make money. Nuclear is a response, but a wrong response to the problem of resource depletion.
SUMMARY of CONTEXT:
a. The Americans are fast running out of water to run hydro-electric plants on the Colorado River. They need electricity. The Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams currently supply 25 to 30 million people in the western United States with electricity. That’s about to end. Conservation and renewables could have saved them, if they had started long ago. They have transition plans, now, finally. But it’s unclear whether there’s still enough time on the clock. There’s money to be made by companies, if they can export electricity to the U.S. We will pay the costs.
b. We are all fast running out of cheap oil. So, develop the tar sands on the Saskatchewan side of the border. Huge amounts of electricity are needed. Nuclear reactors are the answer. The oil and gas companies will profit handsomely, we will have very expensive gas in our tanks, and the devastation of northern Saskatchewan. Sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide from the Alberta side are already killing the lakes and land from acid rain. There’s money to be made, only not by us. We will pay the costs.
Other people have addressed the – the - - the accurate but impolite word is stupidity - of building nuclear reactors so we can mine the tar sands, thus releasing so many tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that I can’t even imagine the magnitude. We would do this when we know the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions for climate change. To do this, you have to be a nutcase, or as I say, someone who measures self-worth by money, or by rubbing shoulders with the wealthy. Self-worth is not associated with common sense or intelligence. We are the Easter Islander who cuts down the last tree, knowing that he’s cutting down the last tree. Caught in some weird cult of money worship, absent of values and intelligence.
C. A RESPONSE THAT ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM OF RESOURCE DEPLETION
The people of Saskatchewan will benefit if our money is invested in conservation and in renewable energy sources, right now.
We know what the problem is: we have squandered resources that are not renewable. Once you use them up, they are gone. Our response is exactly the same as the one that killed the cod fishery in Atlantic Canada. The Government threw more and more money at it – build larger boats, go further offshore, factory ships with refrigeration on the Grand Banks. The unaddressed problem was a dwindling supply of fish – over fishing. The Government reacted by enabling more over-fishing, more of the thing that was killing the fishery. Decades later the cod fishery shows no signs of recovery.
The appropriate response, the response that would have saved the fishery was conservation, higher prices for fish. So that there might be something left. The cod fishery was a renewable resource at one time. We made it finite by over-fishing.
We cannot grow more water for the Colorado River so it can generate electricity, we cannot grow more water for the North Saskatchewan River. We cannot grow more cheap oil or even more dirty tar sands – they aren’t renewable sources.
We seem unable to grasp the fact that the future lies somewhere else. Putting more money into a response that does not address the actual problem (dwindling supplies), will achieve complete destruction, exactly as happened with the cod fishery. The economy crashes along with the resource the economy is dependent upon, unless you transition to something else.
Because our economy is dependent upon CHEAP oil, the route that uses nuclear energy to fuel tar sands development, that DENIES we have a problem with our energy source (it’s running out), will only ensure that we have more and repeated economic crisis, in a downward and very destructive spiral. Surely that is evident from the current economic crisis. When the price of oil runs up to $150 a barrel, it sends shock-waves through an economy built upon $50 a barrel oil.
It is absolutely not necessary to go the route of destruction, as was done with the cod fishery resource.
Conservation and renewables. There is no place for expensive detours into nuclear energy that only serve to enable more “over fishing”.
From CONTEXT I move on to GOVERNANCE, the second driver behind the nuclear agenda.
2. ASPECTS OF GOVERNANCE DRIVING THE NUCLEAR DECISION
The system of governance that has the best chance of protecting resources like water from over-exploitation and from poisons is democracy. Water and water-free-of-poisons is essential to living in this place.
But democracy is an obstacle to the corporation that wants to make money, if its activities involve air, land and water pollution such as from the oil and gas industry (tar sands example) or from nuclear reactors that put out invisible, odorless, radioactive particles into water and air.
Diminished democracy works well for corporations that make their money from resource exploitation: citizens are prevented from curtailing the destructive side of their activities.
Here I list six items that illustrate the extent to which democracy has been under-mined. It is the second half of the answer to the question of “WHY” is the nuclear agenda driving forward? Democratic function is being side-lined.
A. CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST
RICHARD FLORIZONE, WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS
Richard Florizone is the Vice-President of Finance at the University of Saskatchewan. Richard Florizone is a nuclear physicist. He is the head of the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) established by the Government, an industry-stacked panel to write a Report. The Government and the University are creating a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan. And every one of the Public Consultation meetings starts with a one-sided video-taped presentation by Richard Florizone. He doesn’t even identify who he is, not even his name.
At the Public Consultations, there is no video-tape of the cost-side and problems with the nuclear industry. There is nothing to counter the lies and spin-doctoring such as “nuclear is safe”, or “nuclear is green” or “nuclear is economic”.
Back to Richard Florizone. Let me read from the World Nuclear News:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsa ... x?id=24983
. . . Richard Florizone, chairman of the UDP, said: "We believe great potential exists for the province of Saskatchewan in the uranium and nuclear industries. We have identified where we believe those opportunities lie and what it would take to successfully realize them. We have also identified efforts that the partnership believes should not be pursued in the foreseeable future."
In its 136-page report, the panel notes that the nuclear industry is enjoying a global renaissance. The UDP says that "it makes particular sense for the province of Saskatchewan to assess its options for benefitting from this nuclear renaissance. The province has a significant, growing need for power over the next several decades and it is already a major participant in the first step of the overall uranium value chain."
------
Richard Florizone is in a strategic position for the nuclear industry: head of the Government UDP Panel recommending nuclear power reactors and a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University, Vice-President of Finance at the University of Saskatchewan.
I am appalled that the Government AND the University AND Richard Florizone have so little regard for the rules of democratic function. It is expected that persons in a conflict-of-interest step forward, announce such a blatant conflict-of-interest and withdraw from the process. The UDP Panel is invalid because of the conflicts-of-interest with Florizone, Bruce Power, Cameco, Areva, etc. They all stand to make money, or be the recipients of money, from recommendations they are making.
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization has an interest that might compromise their reliability. A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it, and can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the conflicted individual or organization.
B. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS: BUT BRAD WALL HAS ALREADY TOLD WASHINGTON ...
A second example of diminished democracy is the spin doctoring that accompanies the “public consultation” process.
“Consultation” from on-line dictionaries is what I understand it to be:
- A conference at which advice is given or views are exchanged.
- A meeting for deliberation, discussion, or decision
The “public consultations” on the nuclear/uranium question in Saskatchewan are not consultations at all. Richard Florizone and the UDP Panel and therefore their Report are in a deplorable conflict-of-interest. That is one factor. There is a second. Consultations are for the purpose of making decisions. They are irrelevant and dishonest if the decision has already been made. Indications are that the decision has already been made.
The newspapers have this to say about Brad Wall’s visits to the United States:
National Post, March 07, 2009
…
Wall spent part of his trip to Washington scouting D.C. lobby firms, with the intention of hiring one to protect the province's interests on Capitol Hill.
"We hope to get a firm that's not just got some ability to open some political doors. We need to continue to open financial doors and attract capital to the province," he said. . . .
During meetings with several prominent U.S. lawmakers — including senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham — Wall also discussed Saskatchewan's interest in developing small nuclear reactor technology as a way to replace the burning of natural gas in the production of oilsands oil.
"There are challenges and risk to these technologies, but we will cause ourselves innumerable more problems if our default position is to do nothing," Wall said.”
The statements by Brad Wall are somewhat premature. He didn’t tell his Washington audiences that he hasn‘t yet consulted with the people of Saskatchewan. But I am happy to read that we are only going to build "small" reactors.
“Public Consultations” are unnecessary and a waste of money if the decision has already been made.
Brad Wall says one thing when he is speaking to business interests, as in the March 09 newspaper report. Lyle Stewart, Cabinet colleague of Wall, states something else for the people of Saskatchewan.
From his website while he was Minister responsible for the nuclear portfolio, before he was demoted on May 29, 2009:
Lyle Stewart
Minister of Enterprise and Innovation
Saskatchewan Government Growth Fund Management Corporation
Saskatchewan Opportunities Corporation
Saskatchewan Research Council
Investment Saskatchewan Inc.
Enterprise Saskatchewan
Innovation Saskatchewan
“No final decision on the future of uranium development in Saskatchewan will be made until after the public consultation process is complete. Nuclear power is also not the only option being considered. Our government is committed to exploring all forms of energy generation, including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, clean coal and nuclear, as we look to the future power needs of Saskatchewan people.”
Brad Wall and Lyle Stewart and Bill Boyd who replaced Stewart on the nuclear file, did not tell the public during the 2007 Election Campaign about their plans for nuclear and uranium development. That’s what elections are for, if you have a democracy.
The next couple of items tell you WHO is making the decisions. I use quotes from Macleans’ Magazine because anyone can go to the Library and get the back copy. There are many more places where this is documented.
C. MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE, INTEGRATION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN POWER GRID
Reading from the September 11, 2006 Maclean’s magazine, page 28, an article entitled:
“Meet Nafta 2.0”
Sub-title: “Forget sweeping trade deals, CEOs have a new road map to the future”.
One of the three areas that corporate executives and the political leaders are moving ahead on in North America, as reported in Macleans’ Magazine, 2006, is “energy integration in everything from electrical grids to the locating of liquid natural gas terminals.”
Integration of the North American electrical grid. They want control of the electricity so they can make lots of money as we deal with the consequences of resource depletion.
Stephen Harper is the Canadian head-of-state in what was the “SPP” (Security and Prosperity Partnership) or “Nafta 2.0” as titled by Macleans’ Magazine. They’ve taken so much heat that the name has been changed. It’s now the “Standing Commission on North American Prosperity”.
http://www.usmcocse.org/standingcommission.html (May 29, 2009)
The website of the Standing Commission on North American Prosperity states that it "is an united effort of distinguished individuals from Mexico, Canada and the USA to provide sound economic and social policy guidance to the political leaders of the three countries for the prosperity of all peoples of North America."
" In the aftermath of NAFTA and the SPP initiatives, a vacuum presently exists in developing a vision for North American prosperity. The lack of such a vision jeopardizes previous achievements in building strong economic ties across North America made during the past 15 years."
Stephen Harper doesn’t consult with Canadians.
D. MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE, CEO'S OF LARGE CORPORATIONS WORKING WITH HEADS-OF-STATE AND BUREAUCRACIES TO BY-PASS CITIZEN CONTROL
From the same article in Maclean’s Magazine:
“Ron Covais (President of the Americans for Lockheed Martin Corporation) … one of a cherry-picked group of executives who were whisked to Cancun in March by the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and asked to come up with a plan for taking North American integration beyond NAFTA. Covais figures they’ve got less than two years of political will to make it happen. That’s when the Bush Administration exits, and “The clock will stop if the Harper minority government falls or a new government is elected.” . . . The “president of Home Depot Canada, who flew in on Harper’s jet said that the PM was “very engaged”."
The political leaders in place in 2006 were Bush, Harper, and Fox from Mexico.
“The leaders organized the CEOs into a formal advisory body, the North American Competitiveness Council. … “The guidance from the ministers was, ‘tell us what we need to do and we’ll make it happen,’ recalls Covais, who chairs the U.S. section of the council, which includes 10 CEOs of big companies like WalMart, General Motors and Merck. . . . ". (The Canadian section includes Suncor, no surprise.)
From a governance point-of-view, the critical point from the intentions of the CEOs and Political leaders is this:
“ This is how the future of North America now promises to be written: not in a sweeping trade agreement on which elections will turn, but by the accretion of hundreds of incremental changes implemented by executive agencies, bureaucracies and regulators. “We’ve decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes,” says Covais. “Because we won’t get anywhere.”
It continues, “Other (proposals) are sweeping: everyone should follow the U.S. lead of requiring federal regulators to base their regulations on the voluntary standards of private industry.”
Canada’s Industry minister in 2006, Maxime Bernier, is quoted, “he’s pleased so far “We have many of Canada’s key business leaders at the table. They are working hard to represent the interests of Canadian business and all Canadians.”
Note that after the end of FIRA (the Foreign Investment Review Agency) Canadian companies, and especially in the oil and gas sector, have been bought up by transnational corporations. “Canadian business” is rhetoric that does not describe what’s real in strategic areas of Canadian enterprise.
E. THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
It is convenient and cost-effective for the industry if there is a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan. It helps to minimize the competing public interest which is in conservation (conservation with a view to reducing the cost of energy services) and renewable energy sources. In addition, a Nuclear Studies Centre has the effect of adding legitimacy and pizzazz to public investment in the industry. More “bail-out” money in other words.
The Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States along with many other groups are tackling the problem of corporate interests in the universities. A society is dependent upon its knowledge base for making sound decisions to carry it forward on a wise path. With the corporations at the universities we are getting bogus, manipulated science. You can think of the Dr. Olivieri case in Ontario and other examples.
A Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan will be a huge obstacle to moving Saskatchewan onto a renewable energy path, in preparation for what looms on the horizon.
The University of Saskatchewan was built through the years by the people of Saskatchewan for the education of their children.
It is in the process of being stolen by corporate interests. More accurately, collaborators in Government and in the University are giving it away to corporate interests. . . . Monsanto, Cameco. It’s not education or higher learning. It’s manipulated “science” and agendas that do not serve the public interest. GMO wheat and corporate owned seed – no one wants it, it benefits no one. It serves one function and that is to enrich the corporation and its shareholders.
So now Cameco, Areva, Bruce Power, Richard Florizone and the Government will see that there is a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan. Through corporate influence in the machinery of government and education, the citizens of Saskatchewan are investing more millions of dollars in a pursuit that does not serve the public interest.
F. IGNORE YOUR OWN RESOURCE DEPLETION, COVET YOUR NEIGHBOUR'S
The corporate interest in diminishing democracy to gain control of resources (water and air pollution, mineral extraction, etc.) to make profits for the shareholders of the corporation has an “iffy” side to it. It potentially creates tensions in the population.
People don’t like it when their water becomes contaminated, their lakes acidified, the air polluted and so on. As we have seen, first with Ludwig Wiebo in Alberta and now with the pipeline incidents near Dawson Creek, people will fight back to save their children from disease and developmental problems caused by poisonous emissions.
The corporations and government officials working with them, can’t have that. People defending their lands are labeled “terrorist” and the “anti-terrorist RCMP squad” is assigned to ferret them out. I read the newspaper headline on May 28th, “Federal minister warns of homegrown terrorism” and agreed. Yes, terrorists are “grown”. They grow in the fields of injustice. There is nothing just about taking what does not belong to you. “Thou shalt not covet … “
The water/energy example makes obvious the danger: run yourself out of water and energy, as is the case in the western U.S. and you covet your neighbours’ supply. The only way you can take theirs is by political manipulation or by moving to a police state or by dropping bombs.
People in Saskatchewan are naïve if they think that somehow, we are exempt from the tactics used to secure American and Canadian corporate mining interests in other countries. Patrice Lumumba in the Congo over American corporate interests in rich copper mines. Falconbridge Canada over water for its mines in South American countries.
The story is always the same. Take and/or poison the water, run the local population from self-supporting people with dignity, into a sick people unable to water themselves and grow their crops, forced to migrate to urban slums. You know the examples from other countries. Need I mention what happened to the people of Iraq because of their oil resource? Because others depleted their own resource and then …
G. THE PETRO-STATE. DWAIN LINGENFELTER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF NEXEN OIL & GAS IS NOW THE LEADER OF THE “OPPOSITION” NDP PARTY IN SASKATCHEWAN (Saturday, June 6, 2009)
Alberta has the one-party rule of a petro-state. The ruling party does not need the electorate; resource revenues insulate the Government from citizens. If they become unhappy, the Government has the money to buy them candy. The Government works with and for the petro-companies.
Saskatchewan now has, unequivocally, the petro-state - just a slight variation on the Alberta model. It does not matter which party is in power. Only in appearance is it a two-party system. There is no “opposition” party to keep the ruling party in check.
We have Brad Wall and the Sask Party supporting the nuclear (and oil and gas) industry. We have Dwain Lingenfelter, Vice-President of Nexen Oil and Gas, elected to the leadership of “the other” party, the NDP (Saturday, June 6, 2009). Before Lingenfelter went to Nexen Oil and Gas he was Deputy Premier of the NDP under Premier Roy Romanow. He served from September 2000 at Nexen and is now back with the NDP. Nexen has financial interests in the tar sands right next to the Saskatchewan border. They must have the nuclear energy source for tar sands development.
Democracies have rules about revolving doors between government and the industries it is supposed to regulate. They often have rules about corporate donations to political parties. We have neither and we have diminished democracy, conveniently.
3. "INNUMERABLE MORE PROBLEMS"
A. USING NUCLEAR TO STAY ON FOSSIL FUELS, CITIZENS INVESTING IN OBSOLETE INDUSTRIES
Brad Wall speaks of the default position to nuclear power as “doing nothing”. And the “innumerable problems” we’ll face if we do nothing.
We will have “innumerable problems” if we pursue a nuclear agenda. The prudent position in the context of non-renewable resource depletion is an aggressive move forward into renewable energy sources. Investing ANY money in nuclear reactors so we can accelerate the depletion is to ensure we arrive at the end of the fossil fuel road without any back-up.
The self-destruction will be economic because we’ve invested in the wrong place and it will be environmental because we will have exacerbated climate change instead of doing everything we can to mitigate.
We will have built expensive nuclear reactors to develop expensive tar sands. Just the existing tar sands development in Alberta is killing northern Saskatchewan because the sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide carry downwind and fall as acid rain.
Even if people in Saskatchewan mount enough resistance to un-do the decision to build nuclear reactors and a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan, Brad Wall’s statement needs to be challenged. “We will cause ourselves innumerable more problems if our default position is to do nothing”.
We will have unsolvable problems if we don’t get off fossil fuels. Building nuclear reactors so we can stay on fossil fuels is to self-destruct.
B. THE ANALOGY OF THE DRUG ADDICT
There is deliberate self-destruction south of the border; no water and no electricity means the end of the civilization as we know it. The first time I visited the Arizona desert in the early 1980’s I knew that without changes in their use of water they would be after Canadian water within a short time. I’m not a water specialist. I have some common sense. You don’t need any training to see the obvious. At that time I hadn’t made the connection that with water we are also talking electricity if the supply is hydro.
The analogy of the drug addict is so appropriate:
- the person can’t get off the drug, makes one bad decision after another.
- Others stand by watching, able to see clearly that the end is self-destruction and unable to understand why someone would deliberately self-destruct.
C. NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR MORE TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENT WILL FINISH OFF THE NORTH OF SASKATCHEWAN
If Brad Wall, Richard Florizone, Cameco, Bruce Power, Areva, OilSands Quest and Nexen Oil and Gas (Vice President Dwain Lingenfelter, until his decision to come back to Saskatchewan politics) have their way, we will finish off the North.
Northern peoples already know that the lakes are acidifying. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment reported four years ago that some parts of northern Saskatchewan were already past critical load limits for acidity. I understand that the Government of Saskatchewan is sitting on a new report that confirms the condition has worsened since that CCME Report in 2005. That seems quite logical: tar sands production has increased dramatically in the last few years.
Brad Wall makes the connection for the investors in the United States. I don’t know that he has been as frank with the people of Saskatchewan: “Wall also discussed Saskatchewan's interest in developing small nuclear reactor technology as a way to replace the burning of natural gas in the production of oilsands oil.”
In order to maintain the wealth of the oil companies, they have to have the nuclear reactors and they have to spin the lie that the nuclear reactors are "clean and green". The world is screaming that the industry is using up the dwindling supply of relatively clean natural gas, to produce very dirty, greenhouse-gas-producing tar sands oil. The oil and gas companies have almost lost their social license to operate, because of the tar sands.
D. EXPERIENCE WITH PRIVATIZED ELECTRICITY SALES, THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS IN 2000
(I (we) are indebted to Margaret Lewis from Theodore, SK for making the important connection to the California experience.)
Sask Power is a crown corporation whose mandate it is to provide electricity for the people of Saskatchewan.
Bruce Power setting up shop in Saskatchewan with help from the Government has the effect of moving the functions of Sask Power into the hands of a private company. Plans to export electricity mean that we will lose control over where and for how much the electricity is sold, to us or to others.
People will remember the California fiasco, the experiment with exactly the same thing. I don’t know why we would want to duplicate that experience. The lesson was pretty clear.
The California electricity crisis of 2000, leading to large price rises and blackouts, was caused by the dominance of a small group of generators (Woo 2001); a number of states in the USA suspended their plans for de-regulation as a result.
From “Why Did California’s Lights Go Out?” by Brendan Martin, 2002
http://www.publicworld.org/docs/calielec.pdf
“ . . . when California Governor Gray Davis said (these) words in his 2001 State of the State address, he was not about to tell his electors anything they did not already know. Referring to how the Golden State had lived up to its reputation of way-out fads by partially de-regulating and privatizing its electricity supply, Governor Davis said:
“We must face reality: California’s deregulation scheme is a colossal and dangerous failure. It has not lowered consumer prices. And it has not increased supply. In fact, it has resulted in skyrocketing prices, price-gouging, and an unreliable supply of electricity. In short, an energy nightmare . . . we have lost control over our own power. We have surrendered the decisions about where electricity is sold - and for how much - to private companies with only one objective: maximizing unheard-of profits.”
The writing is on the wall for the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta if Bruce Power builds nuclear reactors in our provinces. The writing is on the wall, if we want to read it.
(4) IN CONCLUSION
At this writing, five of the public consultation meetings on the Future of the Nuclear and Uranium industries in Saskatchewan and two of the “stakeholder meetings” have been held. Attendance has been solid. The message is consistent: a large majority of citizens do not want nuclear, they want investment in conservation and renewables.
That pattern of response will intensify: the meetings have moved from the south of the Province which is distant from the location of the proposed nuclear reactors and potential radioactive waste disposal sites.
The next meetings are in the North Saskatchewan River Valley where there is already awareness and large-scale resistance aroused by Bruce Power’s attempts to buy options on land in the River Valley northeast of Lloydminster for the reactors. The concern now is that the Government will give or sell publicly-held lands to Bruce Power.
Why is there a large push behind the nuclear business in Saskatchewan and Alberta, in spite of large resistance to nuclear and uranium development by citizens? Why isn’t it Sask Power that would “own” the reactors?
The electricity sales have to be made by a company, in order for there to be large profits for anyone. There is huge money to be made in selling electricity, whether to the western U.S., or to the tar sands companies. Who can in turn make big money for their shareholders. Big money can be made in both instances because the resource base is being depleted. As resources become more scarce there is more money to be made. And especially if you can get the public to foot large portions of the “cost” side of the development.
A petro-state structure, complete with outrageous conflicts-of-interest (diminished democracy), is required if the monied interests are to be served. The public interest is clearly and urgently in conservation and in investment in small-scale, decentralized electrical generation.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Finley
Sandra Finley Email Network
656 Saskatchewan Crescent East
Saskatoon SK S7N 0L1
306-373-8078
sabest1@sasktel.net
===============
(5) APPENDED
A. CONVERSATION
i. SITUATION IN THE WESTERN STATES
From Koren. My responses are in italics:
So talking to some Sask Power people I found out that they're working on strengthening the grid straight south, so that we could sell power to (I assume) Montana, and North Dakota.
See Joe Anglin’s email below. He explains the situation in Alberta with building the grid straight south. The situation here is parallel. And it is all parallel to what is currently happening in B.C. It looks like they (in Alberta) are heading to the Supreme Court on it.
The need for electricity and water, especially in the western States is almost beyond remedy. The Colorado River with the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams (the 2 largest water reservoirs in the U.S.) is so overdrawn that the reservoirs (Lake Powell and Lake Mead) are in danger of drying up. People noticed the declining water levels. A scientific report was commissioned. It reported in Feb 2008: the reservoirs have a 50/50 chance of being bone dry by 2021. But the power-generating capacity will be lost before that: a 50/50 chance that it will be gone by 2017. Eight years from now.
Those 2 hydro-electric dams and the reservoirs feed MILLIONS of people. The Hoover Dam is 30 miles south of Las Vegas. The water goes by aquaduct to Vegas, Los Angele, San Diego, etc.. We're looking at parts of Nevada, Arizona, California. The population of California is equal to the whole of Canada (Californians, of course, don't ALL get their water from the Colorado River - I just want to make the point that it is MILLIONS of people who are in serious trouble. Tim Barnett from the University of California at San Diego told me that 30,000,000 people are dependent upon the Colorado River – still a population the size of Canada but spread over 3 or more states). There is a lot of irrigation farming (fruits and vegetables that we import) and industry that is absolutely dependent upon the Colorado River. The summertime glacial melt feed for the Rivers (including the South and North Sask Rivers) will be gone all too soon.
A few years ago, closer to home - in Idaho, the Idaho Government paid out 73 million dollars to the irrigation farmers to turn off their irrigation pumps. It was a hot summer. There wasn't enough water to generate the electricity to run the air conditioners of the urban population and simultaneously meet the electricity demands of the irrigation pumps.
The Americans are finally now taking some appropriate steps. Like banning the water fountains at the golf courses and hotels in the desert. Will it be soon enough? Personally I think there will have to be large re-locations of people. But the area is projected to have a population inflow of 10,000,000. If they knew the situation they wouldn't go.
ii. SIMON REISMAN ON MONEY TO BE MADE
A book entitled “To the Last Drop", written in/around 1982:
- the benefits of diverting Canadian water (it can be "virtual" water, too, by exporting products like electricity) to the U.S. were articulated by Canada's chief negotiator for the Free Trade Agreement, Simon Reisman under Brian Mulroney
- the benefits are that the U.S. needs the water (and electricity) so badly that a whole lot of money can be made. Reisman said then that so much money could be made that it would change the balance of power on the North American continent. Canada will become the powerhouse because we have the water and we can dictate the sales price. Never mind the huge infrastructure costs (like canals and power transmission lines). The Americans will need it so badly that they will pay the exorbitant infrastructure costs.
He was wrong about the last point. If the Government and Corporations like Bruce Power have their way, Canadian taxpayers will foot much of the infrastructure costs. We aren't as broke as the American taxpayers, mired in Federal Government debt! Mind you, Harper is racking up a good chunk of debt now, too. And he budgeted a bunch of money for the nuclear industry.
Water was supposed to have been specifically left out of the NAFTA. At the last minute, at the 11th hour, – oops! - - someone forgot and water did not get a specific exemption. And by NAFTA rules, once we start exporting the water (or electricity), we can never stop, no matter what need for it we might have in Canada.
iii. LINE FROM A LIFE-RAFT TO THE TITANIC
Manitoba already sells electricity into the States (from hydro projects in northern MB). Chiefs have gone to the buyers to try and persuade them to stop buying Manitoban electricity because the dams, with the consequent changes to eco-systems, are making it impossible for First Nations to live off their lands. They are reduced to further poverty while other people are becoming rich from the sales of the electricity.
I don’t like to be stingy with our resources while other people suffer. But we are in an arid province. It is projected that 10 million MORE people will immigrate into the southwestern U.S. The crisis cannot be solved by sending our water and electricity to them. It will only prolong the agony AND place us in a position like theirs. Drained and bankrupt. The consequences of ignorance, greed and a false belief that we can eat, drink and heat/cool our homes with money. The consequence of a serious distortion of values mixed with stupidity. It’s not about being stingy with our resources. It’s about whether you allow yourself to be raped. There is nothing admirable about being naïve.
Sending electricity and water, virtual or otherwise, to the U.S. is like throwing a line from a life-raft to the Titanic while she's going under. We'll go down with her.
The nuclear agenda serves someone's interests, but not ours.
===============
B. THE MATL LINE, LETHBRIDGE TO USA, APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
THE ALBERTA PARALLEL TO SASK.:
Date: May 6, 2009 9:44:06 AM GMT-06:00
Subject: Action
We suffered a setback at the Alberta Court of Appeals in our efforts to stop the construction of the international MATL transmission line from Lethbridge to Great Falls Montana. In the aftermath of this setback, now is not the time to roll over and give up! Too much hinges upon our efforts to continue this fight – we cannot and must not stop now.
Nuclear power plants cannot be built in Alberta, if transmission lines are not in place before the first foundation is poured. Unparalleled tarsands expansion will not be forthcoming without the addition of numerous nuclear power plants.
If we allow the MATL transmission line to be built, every battle thereafter becomes more difficult, particularly in view of the new Land Assembly Area Act. If we defeat the MATL transmission line here and now, private investors will become less likely to invest in nuclear power, particularly if they see an increasing risk of not getting their product (electricity) transmitted to the U.S.
Two judges voted against our appeal, and one judge voted for us in the MATL appeal. We came ever so close to winning this fight. However we always expected that this fight would continue to the Supreme Court of Canada; we just wanted to go to Ottawa as the victors of a lower court ruling.
We are now evaluating our options and legal strategy. In view of the new Land Assembly Area Act we are now faced with possibly two Supreme Court of Canada challenges rather than one. We will be applying to the Supreme Court of Canada to continue the MATL appeal as soon as funds are in place.
To achieve the impossible, we only need to do what is possible. We need your help and I am asking you to contribute to this legal battle now. But most importantly, we need you to help raise funds for these legal battles.
(These are very good people. I’ve met and had supper with one of them. I sent them a cheque. We are all in this together. The UDP plan is to export electricity to Alberta. Private interests, MATL, are building the transmission line from Lethbridge south.)
== == == == == == == ==
C. SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY. CONNECTION TO UNIVERSITY CENTRE OF NUCLEAR STUDIES AND EXPORT ELECTRICITY TO THE U.S.
Idaho National Laboratory is a science and engineering national laboratory dedicated to meeting the nation's environmental, energy, nuclear technology, ...
I have skim-read reports but do not know the terms of the Agreements signed by the Governments of Saskatchewan (March 2009) and Alberta with the Idaho National Laboratory with regard to nuclear energy. My impression is that they confirm the opinion stated repeatedly at the Public Consultation Meetings: the deals have already been made. This is bogus consultation.
With thanks to Dick:
Just another piece that fits the puzzle is the Memorandum of Understanding, an agreement that our government (Enterprise Saskatchewan) signed in March with the Idaho National Laboratory which in essence supports the development of the proposed Western Inland Energy Corridor.
This proposed corridor will cover a vast territory including Montana, Idaho, Colorado which stretches to the Pacific coast. The US energy support services (from the Idaho National Laboratory): exported from our province will be nuclear power generated electricity . Apparently a similar agreement between the Laboratory and the Alberta government through the Alberta Research Council links the future exports of electricity to the US from the Peace River nuclear reactor.
------------------------------------
(i) http://network.utilities.energy-busines ... ian_court_
rebuffs_matls_300_mw_power_transmission_line_
legal_challenge_090505
Energy Business Review
Tonbridge Declares That Canadian Court Rebuffs MATL’s 300 MW Power Transmission Line Legal Challenge
Published:05-May-2009
By Staff Reporter
Tonbridge Power Inc. (Tonbridge), 100% controlling stakeholder of the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL) transmission line project to link the electricity areas of Alberta and the US via a 300 megawatts (MW) transmission line, has declared that the Alberta Court of Appeal has rebuffed the landowner petition of the permit given by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board to the MATL transmission line. The MATL Line has been granted all necessary permits in the US and Canada.
Submission to UDP Consultation
Organization: Sandra Finley Email Network
Presenter: Sandra Finley, Saskatoon
May 28, 2009 3:00 pm Prairie Land Exhibition Park, Hall E in Saskatoon
If citizens understand WHY the reactors are to be built, we can better assess whether they will be built.
It is ultimately citizens who will decide whether reactors will be built in Saskatchewan and in Alberta.
CONTENTS
1. CONTEXT
A. THE DEMAND SIDE FOR ELECTRICITY (ELECTRICITY EXPORT)
WESTERN U.S., LOOMING WATER SHORTAGE, LOSS OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC CAPACITY HOOVER, GLEN CANYON DAMS
B. THE CONNECTION TO PEAK OIL. NUCLEAR NECESSITY FOR TAR SANDS PRODUCTION.
C. A RESPONSE THAT ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM OF RESOURCE DEPLETION
2. ASPECTS OF GOVERNANCE THAT ARE DRIVING THE NUCLEAR DECISION
A. CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST
RICHARD FLORIZONE, WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS
B. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS. BUT BRAD WALL HAS ALREADY TOLD WASHINGTON . . .
C. MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE, INTEGRATION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN POWER GRID
D. MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE, CEO'S WORKING WITH HEADS-OF-STATE TO BY-PASS CITIZEN CONTROL
E. THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
F. IGNORE YOUR OWN RESOURCE DEPLETION, COVET YOUR NEIGHBOUR'S
G. THE PETRO-STATE. DWAIN LINGENFELTER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF NEXEN OIL & GAS IS NOW THE LEADER OF THE “OPPOSITION” NDP PARTY IN SASKATCHEWAN
3. "INNUMERABLE MORE PROBLEMS"
A. USING NUCLEAR TO STAY ON FOSSIL FUELS, CITIZENS INVESTING IN OBSOLETE INDUSTRIES
B. THE ANALOGY OF THE DRUG ADDICT
C. NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR MORE TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENT WILL FINISH OFF NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN
D. EXPERIENCE WITH PRIVATIZED ELECTRICITY SALES, THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS IN 2000
4. IN CONCLUSION
5. APPENDED
A. CONVERSATION
i. SITUATION IN THE WESTERN STATES
ii. SIMON REISMAN ON MONEY TO BE MADE, CANADA'S WATER (ELECTRICITY)
iii. LINE FROM A LIFE-RAFT TO THE TITANIC
B. THE MATL HIGH POWER TRANSMISSION LINE, LETHBRIDGE TO USA, APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
C. SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY. CONNECTION TO UNIVERSITY CENTRE OF NUCLEAR STUDIES AND EXPORT ELECTRICITY TO THE U.S.
Other people have addressed aspects of the nuclear/uranium question extremely well.
I address just two, but very important aspects:
1. The broader picture or CONTEXT in which the citizens of Saskatchewan will make their decisions on nuclear and uranium development.
2. Aspects of GOVERNANCE that affect the nuclear decision.
Before the citizens of Saskatchewan make their decision on nuclear and uranium development, it is helpful to know WHY Bruce Power, Cameco, Areva, the University and the Government want to build nuclear reactors in the Province and a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University.
What are the conditions that make it desirable to build? (these are business decisions)
The answers lie in understanding the context and some aspects of governance. Let me lay some of that out.
It makes it clear why I strongly support investment in energy conservation and renewable energy supplies. The road to nuclear would be, at best, a backward and extremely expensive step for the people of Saskatchewan to choose.
I make a specific recommendation:
The people of Saskatchewan (the Government and the University) should NOT proceed with a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan.
If the University accepts money from Cameco, Areva and Bruce Power, Westinghouse or other corporate interests for a Nuclear Studies Centre, it will have further tarnished a once-valuable reputation for bona fide education, “science”, creativity and research in the public interest.
The people of Saskatchewan would be far better served by a Centre to Study the corporatization of Government and of the University, the myth of democratic government. It is clear from the abounding conflicts-of-interest, that well-placed persons in Saskatchewan have no grasp of what is right and expected in a democracy.
Alternately, in the public interest, if there is to be new funding of ANY new centre at the University it should be one related to conservation and renewable energy sources.
So what about CONTEXT, the conditions that make it desirable from a business perspective, to build nuclear power reactors?
I zero in on the EXPORT aspect of the electricity.
My input is in reference to the UDP Report, Executive Summary:
Under “Power Generation”:
Item t.
“Initial examination suggests that up to approximately 3,000 MW of nuclear capacity could be constructed to meet Saskatchewan's power needs and capture EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES.”
And from the Recommendations in the UDP Report:
“ - Considering the development, in coordination with Alberta, of a common power generation solution for the two Provinces by pooling their power needs and building stronger interties between the two provincial grids.
- Evaluating the type of grid, reserve, and intertie upgrades required under both a domestic and an EXPORT POWER generation scenario . . . "
Regarding export, the feed of electricity from nuclear power plants in Saskatchewan onto the Alberta grid: we should know that private interests intend to build what is called the MATL (Montana Alberta Tie Ltd) high power transmission line from Lethbridge south into Montana.(i) The current court challenges by citizens in Alberta to the MATL line will most likely appeal the recent Federal Court decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Koren Melsted sent me an email on May 8th, 2009 which reads, "So talking to some Sask Power people I found out that they're working on strengthening the grid straight south, so that we could sell power to (I assume) Montana, and North Dakota. ... "
My response to Koren was: See Joe Anglin’s email. He explains the situation in Alberta with building the grid straight south. The situation here is parallel. And it is all parallel to what is currently happening in B.C. The need for electricity and water, especially in the western States is almost beyond remedy. ...
According to the Saskatchewan UDP Report the “export” electricity from nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan is destined for Alberta. But Bruce Power is also trying to build nuclear reactors in Alberta.
What's behind the talk by Brad Wall, Lyle Stewart (now taken over by Cabinet Minister Bill Boyd), Richard Florizone, Cameco, Areva and Bruce Power, of the need for nuclear reactors to meet Saskatchewan's increasing need for electricity? What is the context?
1. CONTEXT
A. THE DEMAND SIDE FOR ELECTRICITY (ELECTRICITY EXPORT)
WESTERN U.S., LOOMING WATER SHORTAGE, LOSS OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC CAPACITY HOOVER, GLEN CANYON DAMS
Because of steadily declining water levels, the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams on the Colorado River have a 50/50 chance of losing their electric power generating capacity by 2017. Eight years away. That is monumental. Those are the two largest man-made reservoirs in the United States. They provide water and electricity for human, industrial and irrigation activity for twenty-five million Americans in parts of Nevada, Arizona, California, for a population approaching that of Canada. The water goes by aquaduct to LasVegas, Los Angele, San Diego, and other communities. I don’t know how far afield the electricity goes.
THE STUDY ON LAKE MEAD (behind the Hoover Dam) February, 2008
Reported for example, by:
Environmental News Wire Service
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008 ... 12-095.asp
National Geographic News
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/
2008/02/080213-AP-lake-mead.html
There's a 50-50 chance that the Arizona- and Nevada-bordering, human-made Lake Mead could become Dry Ditch Mead by 2021, according to a study to be published in the journal Water Resources Research. Oh, and that's a conservative estimate, say the study authors, as is this one: By 2017, there's an equally good chance that water levels in the reservoir could drop so low that the Hoover Dam would be incapable of producing hydroelectric power. Study coauthor Tim Barnett says he was "stunned at the magnitude of the problem and how fast it is coming at us." The study recommends that officials implement conservation and mitigation policies and technologies.
Or: Further research in February 2008 by the University of California in San Diego (Scripps Institution of Oceanography) led researchers to conclude that, if future climate changes as projected and water use "is not curtailed," Lake Mead's water level could drop below the dead storage elevation by 2021, and that the reservoir could drop below minimum power pool elevation as early as 2017. *4+”
On May 25, 2009 I looked for updates on the situation and found this: “as of May 2009, the lake (Mead) is currently at 43 percent of its capacity, threatening to make the Las Vegas valley's primary raw water intake inoperable. If the lake doesn't receive enough inflow this spring, problems may arise later this summer.[2] Arrangements are underway to pipe water from elsewhere in Nevada by 2011, but since the primary raw water intake at Lake Mead could become inoperable as soon as 2010 based on current drought and user projections, Las Vegas could suffer crippling water shortages in the interim.[2] Lake Mead draws a majority of its water from snow melt in the Western Colorado Rockies. Since 2000 the water level has been dropping at a fairly steady rate due to less than average snowfall. As a result, marinas and boat launch ramps have either needed to be moved to another part of the lake or have closed down completely.[3]”
This report does not distinguish between snow melt and the glaciers, a summer-time feed of water into the River that is disappearing. The National Water Research Institute in Canada established in 2003 that we are past “peak flow” off the glaciers that feed the North Saskatchewan River. It will be the same for the Colorado River that feeds these two dams.
I drove along some of the shoreline of Lake Powell behind the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River, a number of years ago and was astonished by the marinas that are high on dry banks of the Lake.
The Alternet Report, June 6 2009, confirms the gravity of the situation, quoting the Secretary of Energy in the Obama Administration:
http://www.alternet.org/water/140487/ca ... od_supply/
"I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen. We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California. I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going," Steven Chu told the Los Angeles Times in February, shortly after taking office in January. "I'm hoping that the American people will wake up," he added, just in case there was any confusion about the gravity of the situation.”
As part of this update on the Feb 2008 report, I telephoned Tim Barnett on May 25th. He is a scientist from the University of California at San Diego, a co-author of the Lake Mead report. Is he aware of any change in the situation? What are the current prospects for continuing electrical power generation from the Dams?
Nothing he had to say was encouraging. Lake Mead water levels started to decline in the late 1990’s. By this fall they are expected to be at the lowest level since the dam started to fill. When the elevation above sea level of the water surface gets down to around 1050 feet, hydro-electric power generation will stop (this year, water levels are 44 feet above that level). The current rate of overdraft is 2,000,000 acre feet per year (that is 1,000,000 acre feet for Lake Mead and 1,000,000 acre feet for Lake Powell). And we know that in Nature, these declines do not happen in linear fashion.
Tim Barnett said there is remarkable agreement in the climate change models: the reduction in run-off from the glaciers is expected to be 10 to 30% per year. That is bad news for the Colorado River and its capacity for hydro-electric power generation. It is equally bad news for the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers.
Americans (and Canadians) are belatedly addressing climate change and water conservation.
The relevant point for the discussion of building nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan to export electricity is CONTEXT: the electrical energy supply in the western U.S. is precarious because of depletion of the water resource.
In all this doom and gloom there is … what? … Great opportunities to make a lot of money selling electricity to the United States. And there’s more money to be made selling water to them, whether real or virtual as happens when you export products that take a lot of water in the making.
Saskatchewanians need to understand the context that makes the construction of nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan and in Alberta so attractive. The push is on because of the electricity/water resource crisis in the U.S. and because, as explained in the second item I will address under “CONTEXT”, nuclear power is required in tar sands production which is the consequence of running ourselves out of cheap conventional supplies of oil and gas.
It is for the people of Saskatchewan to decide whether they want to build nuclear reactors and power transmission lines so that the investors in Bruce Power can make a lot of money from crisis situations. It is for us to look over the horizon to see where WE will be if we haven't invested massively in conservation and renewable energy sources for ourselves. We should have been doing that long before today.
Taking advantage of crisis situations related to electricity and water supplies today is exactly the same phenomenon as IBM and other corporations that made huge profits during the crisis of World War Two. IBM knew what Hitler was doing. And yet IBM supplied the mechanized data sorting that made it possible for the Nazis to do what they did. If you think that Bruce Power's interest in nuclear reactors contains ANY consideration for what makes sense for the people of Saskatchewan, you are terribly naïve. If you think that there aren't collaborators in Government and in the University, you are equally naïve. This is about making money from crisis rather than doing effective problem-solving in the public interest.
Other presenters will address the question of whether there is enough water in the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers to meet the needs of people here. They will no doubt present the Rosenberg Report which reviewed Alberta’s Water for Life strategy. That Report strongly advises against the development of industries that affect the limited and projected-to-be-declining water supply on the prairies.
Those two rivers, the North and South Saskatchewan are the backbone of the water supply in this province. We are more vulnerable than Alberta because we are downstream, much further from the source. We have little actual control over Alberta’s use of upstream and upwind water and air. Tar Sands development and the refineries on the North Saskatchewan River in Edmonton teach us well. And the fact that the South Saskatchewan River is overdrawn on the Alberta side, that Alberta meets its cross border water agreement because it is allowed to use water from the Red Deer River system to compensate, tells us further of our vulnerability.
So we have large corporate interests at work to take advantage of opportunities. Crisis creates opportunities. Corporate law dictates that the corporation makes money for shareholders. You can see the investors jumping on the gravy train.
There is only one obstacle and that is the willingness of the people of Saskatchewan (and Alberta) to agree to the plan.
This first item under CONTEXT was to explain one of the reasons behind the drive to build nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan and Alberta: the drying up of the hydro-electric power generation capability that accompanies the dwindling flows in the Colorado River, in short, the electricity crisis in the western U.S.
Citizens in the U.S. are working on conservation and alternative energy sources, just as the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta are doing. Effective problem solving. Left to their creativity and we to ours, we will work together and find solutions.
But there is this layer over top and between citizens and the Government. That corporate layer which includes other influential people, gets us into trouble. They are people who measure their self-worth in terms of money. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, for example. It is an intervening layer of decision-makers that profit from taking the resources of other people, that creates the problems.
There is a second element of CONTEXT that needs to be understood in the nuclear equation.
B. THE CONNECTION TO PEAK OIL. NUCLEAR NECESSITY FOR TAR SANDS PRODUCTION.
The global economy is highly dependent upon cheap oil which means our economy works when there are so-called “conventional” supplies of oil and gas. We know with certainty that those supplies are dwindling fast; we wouldn’t be putting gas from the tar sands into our tanks if this was not so.
Instead of an all-out effort to get off fossil fuels, the Government and industry are mired in the money of the oil and gas industry. The push is on to develop the tar sands on the Saskatchewan side of the border. They have to have a large supply of electricity in order to do that. The technology involves gigantic electrical diodes that would be inserted deep down where the Saskatchewan tar sands are found. The underground would have to be heated for three or more years to get the tar to the point where it would flow and therefore be collectible. Can you imagine how much electricity it would take?
So that’s the second element of context that Saskatchewanians should understand.
Half of the answer to the question of “WHY” nuclear reactors is: resource depletion (water for electricity and the exhaustion of oil and gas supplies) leads to crisis leads to opportunities to make money. Nuclear is a response, but a wrong response to the problem of resource depletion.
SUMMARY of CONTEXT:
a. The Americans are fast running out of water to run hydro-electric plants on the Colorado River. They need electricity. The Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams currently supply 25 to 30 million people in the western United States with electricity. That’s about to end. Conservation and renewables could have saved them, if they had started long ago. They have transition plans, now, finally. But it’s unclear whether there’s still enough time on the clock. There’s money to be made by companies, if they can export electricity to the U.S. We will pay the costs.
b. We are all fast running out of cheap oil. So, develop the tar sands on the Saskatchewan side of the border. Huge amounts of electricity are needed. Nuclear reactors are the answer. The oil and gas companies will profit handsomely, we will have very expensive gas in our tanks, and the devastation of northern Saskatchewan. Sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide from the Alberta side are already killing the lakes and land from acid rain. There’s money to be made, only not by us. We will pay the costs.
Other people have addressed the – the - - the accurate but impolite word is stupidity - of building nuclear reactors so we can mine the tar sands, thus releasing so many tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that I can’t even imagine the magnitude. We would do this when we know the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions for climate change. To do this, you have to be a nutcase, or as I say, someone who measures self-worth by money, or by rubbing shoulders with the wealthy. Self-worth is not associated with common sense or intelligence. We are the Easter Islander who cuts down the last tree, knowing that he’s cutting down the last tree. Caught in some weird cult of money worship, absent of values and intelligence.
C. A RESPONSE THAT ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM OF RESOURCE DEPLETION
The people of Saskatchewan will benefit if our money is invested in conservation and in renewable energy sources, right now.
We know what the problem is: we have squandered resources that are not renewable. Once you use them up, they are gone. Our response is exactly the same as the one that killed the cod fishery in Atlantic Canada. The Government threw more and more money at it – build larger boats, go further offshore, factory ships with refrigeration on the Grand Banks. The unaddressed problem was a dwindling supply of fish – over fishing. The Government reacted by enabling more over-fishing, more of the thing that was killing the fishery. Decades later the cod fishery shows no signs of recovery.
The appropriate response, the response that would have saved the fishery was conservation, higher prices for fish. So that there might be something left. The cod fishery was a renewable resource at one time. We made it finite by over-fishing.
We cannot grow more water for the Colorado River so it can generate electricity, we cannot grow more water for the North Saskatchewan River. We cannot grow more cheap oil or even more dirty tar sands – they aren’t renewable sources.
We seem unable to grasp the fact that the future lies somewhere else. Putting more money into a response that does not address the actual problem (dwindling supplies), will achieve complete destruction, exactly as happened with the cod fishery. The economy crashes along with the resource the economy is dependent upon, unless you transition to something else.
Because our economy is dependent upon CHEAP oil, the route that uses nuclear energy to fuel tar sands development, that DENIES we have a problem with our energy source (it’s running out), will only ensure that we have more and repeated economic crisis, in a downward and very destructive spiral. Surely that is evident from the current economic crisis. When the price of oil runs up to $150 a barrel, it sends shock-waves through an economy built upon $50 a barrel oil.
It is absolutely not necessary to go the route of destruction, as was done with the cod fishery resource.
Conservation and renewables. There is no place for expensive detours into nuclear energy that only serve to enable more “over fishing”.
From CONTEXT I move on to GOVERNANCE, the second driver behind the nuclear agenda.
2. ASPECTS OF GOVERNANCE DRIVING THE NUCLEAR DECISION
The system of governance that has the best chance of protecting resources like water from over-exploitation and from poisons is democracy. Water and water-free-of-poisons is essential to living in this place.
But democracy is an obstacle to the corporation that wants to make money, if its activities involve air, land and water pollution such as from the oil and gas industry (tar sands example) or from nuclear reactors that put out invisible, odorless, radioactive particles into water and air.
Diminished democracy works well for corporations that make their money from resource exploitation: citizens are prevented from curtailing the destructive side of their activities.
Here I list six items that illustrate the extent to which democracy has been under-mined. It is the second half of the answer to the question of “WHY” is the nuclear agenda driving forward? Democratic function is being side-lined.
A. CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST
RICHARD FLORIZONE, WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS
Richard Florizone is the Vice-President of Finance at the University of Saskatchewan. Richard Florizone is a nuclear physicist. He is the head of the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) established by the Government, an industry-stacked panel to write a Report. The Government and the University are creating a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan. And every one of the Public Consultation meetings starts with a one-sided video-taped presentation by Richard Florizone. He doesn’t even identify who he is, not even his name.
At the Public Consultations, there is no video-tape of the cost-side and problems with the nuclear industry. There is nothing to counter the lies and spin-doctoring such as “nuclear is safe”, or “nuclear is green” or “nuclear is economic”.
Back to Richard Florizone. Let me read from the World Nuclear News:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsa ... x?id=24983
. . . Richard Florizone, chairman of the UDP, said: "We believe great potential exists for the province of Saskatchewan in the uranium and nuclear industries. We have identified where we believe those opportunities lie and what it would take to successfully realize them. We have also identified efforts that the partnership believes should not be pursued in the foreseeable future."
In its 136-page report, the panel notes that the nuclear industry is enjoying a global renaissance. The UDP says that "it makes particular sense for the province of Saskatchewan to assess its options for benefitting from this nuclear renaissance. The province has a significant, growing need for power over the next several decades and it is already a major participant in the first step of the overall uranium value chain."
------
Richard Florizone is in a strategic position for the nuclear industry: head of the Government UDP Panel recommending nuclear power reactors and a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University, Vice-President of Finance at the University of Saskatchewan.
I am appalled that the Government AND the University AND Richard Florizone have so little regard for the rules of democratic function. It is expected that persons in a conflict-of-interest step forward, announce such a blatant conflict-of-interest and withdraw from the process. The UDP Panel is invalid because of the conflicts-of-interest with Florizone, Bruce Power, Cameco, Areva, etc. They all stand to make money, or be the recipients of money, from recommendations they are making.
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization has an interest that might compromise their reliability. A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it, and can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the conflicted individual or organization.
B. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS: BUT BRAD WALL HAS ALREADY TOLD WASHINGTON ...
A second example of diminished democracy is the spin doctoring that accompanies the “public consultation” process.
“Consultation” from on-line dictionaries is what I understand it to be:
- A conference at which advice is given or views are exchanged.
- A meeting for deliberation, discussion, or decision
The “public consultations” on the nuclear/uranium question in Saskatchewan are not consultations at all. Richard Florizone and the UDP Panel and therefore their Report are in a deplorable conflict-of-interest. That is one factor. There is a second. Consultations are for the purpose of making decisions. They are irrelevant and dishonest if the decision has already been made. Indications are that the decision has already been made.
The newspapers have this to say about Brad Wall’s visits to the United States:
National Post, March 07, 2009
…
Wall spent part of his trip to Washington scouting D.C. lobby firms, with the intention of hiring one to protect the province's interests on Capitol Hill.
"We hope to get a firm that's not just got some ability to open some political doors. We need to continue to open financial doors and attract capital to the province," he said. . . .
During meetings with several prominent U.S. lawmakers — including senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham — Wall also discussed Saskatchewan's interest in developing small nuclear reactor technology as a way to replace the burning of natural gas in the production of oilsands oil.
"There are challenges and risk to these technologies, but we will cause ourselves innumerable more problems if our default position is to do nothing," Wall said.”
The statements by Brad Wall are somewhat premature. He didn’t tell his Washington audiences that he hasn‘t yet consulted with the people of Saskatchewan. But I am happy to read that we are only going to build "small" reactors.
“Public Consultations” are unnecessary and a waste of money if the decision has already been made.
Brad Wall says one thing when he is speaking to business interests, as in the March 09 newspaper report. Lyle Stewart, Cabinet colleague of Wall, states something else for the people of Saskatchewan.
From his website while he was Minister responsible for the nuclear portfolio, before he was demoted on May 29, 2009:
Lyle Stewart
Minister of Enterprise and Innovation
Saskatchewan Government Growth Fund Management Corporation
Saskatchewan Opportunities Corporation
Saskatchewan Research Council
Investment Saskatchewan Inc.
Enterprise Saskatchewan
Innovation Saskatchewan
“No final decision on the future of uranium development in Saskatchewan will be made until after the public consultation process is complete. Nuclear power is also not the only option being considered. Our government is committed to exploring all forms of energy generation, including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, clean coal and nuclear, as we look to the future power needs of Saskatchewan people.”
Brad Wall and Lyle Stewart and Bill Boyd who replaced Stewart on the nuclear file, did not tell the public during the 2007 Election Campaign about their plans for nuclear and uranium development. That’s what elections are for, if you have a democracy.
The next couple of items tell you WHO is making the decisions. I use quotes from Macleans’ Magazine because anyone can go to the Library and get the back copy. There are many more places where this is documented.
C. MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE, INTEGRATION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN POWER GRID
Reading from the September 11, 2006 Maclean’s magazine, page 28, an article entitled:
“Meet Nafta 2.0”
Sub-title: “Forget sweeping trade deals, CEOs have a new road map to the future”.
One of the three areas that corporate executives and the political leaders are moving ahead on in North America, as reported in Macleans’ Magazine, 2006, is “energy integration in everything from electrical grids to the locating of liquid natural gas terminals.”
Integration of the North American electrical grid. They want control of the electricity so they can make lots of money as we deal with the consequences of resource depletion.
Stephen Harper is the Canadian head-of-state in what was the “SPP” (Security and Prosperity Partnership) or “Nafta 2.0” as titled by Macleans’ Magazine. They’ve taken so much heat that the name has been changed. It’s now the “Standing Commission on North American Prosperity”.
http://www.usmcocse.org/standingcommission.html (May 29, 2009)
The website of the Standing Commission on North American Prosperity states that it "is an united effort of distinguished individuals from Mexico, Canada and the USA to provide sound economic and social policy guidance to the political leaders of the three countries for the prosperity of all peoples of North America."
" In the aftermath of NAFTA and the SPP initiatives, a vacuum presently exists in developing a vision for North American prosperity. The lack of such a vision jeopardizes previous achievements in building strong economic ties across North America made during the past 15 years."
Stephen Harper doesn’t consult with Canadians.
D. MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE, CEO'S OF LARGE CORPORATIONS WORKING WITH HEADS-OF-STATE AND BUREAUCRACIES TO BY-PASS CITIZEN CONTROL
From the same article in Maclean’s Magazine:
“Ron Covais (President of the Americans for Lockheed Martin Corporation) … one of a cherry-picked group of executives who were whisked to Cancun in March by the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and asked to come up with a plan for taking North American integration beyond NAFTA. Covais figures they’ve got less than two years of political will to make it happen. That’s when the Bush Administration exits, and “The clock will stop if the Harper minority government falls or a new government is elected.” . . . The “president of Home Depot Canada, who flew in on Harper’s jet said that the PM was “very engaged”."
The political leaders in place in 2006 were Bush, Harper, and Fox from Mexico.
“The leaders organized the CEOs into a formal advisory body, the North American Competitiveness Council. … “The guidance from the ministers was, ‘tell us what we need to do and we’ll make it happen,’ recalls Covais, who chairs the U.S. section of the council, which includes 10 CEOs of big companies like WalMart, General Motors and Merck. . . . ". (The Canadian section includes Suncor, no surprise.)
From a governance point-of-view, the critical point from the intentions of the CEOs and Political leaders is this:
“ This is how the future of North America now promises to be written: not in a sweeping trade agreement on which elections will turn, but by the accretion of hundreds of incremental changes implemented by executive agencies, bureaucracies and regulators. “We’ve decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes,” says Covais. “Because we won’t get anywhere.”
It continues, “Other (proposals) are sweeping: everyone should follow the U.S. lead of requiring federal regulators to base their regulations on the voluntary standards of private industry.”
Canada’s Industry minister in 2006, Maxime Bernier, is quoted, “he’s pleased so far “We have many of Canada’s key business leaders at the table. They are working hard to represent the interests of Canadian business and all Canadians.”
Note that after the end of FIRA (the Foreign Investment Review Agency) Canadian companies, and especially in the oil and gas sector, have been bought up by transnational corporations. “Canadian business” is rhetoric that does not describe what’s real in strategic areas of Canadian enterprise.
E. THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
It is convenient and cost-effective for the industry if there is a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan. It helps to minimize the competing public interest which is in conservation (conservation with a view to reducing the cost of energy services) and renewable energy sources. In addition, a Nuclear Studies Centre has the effect of adding legitimacy and pizzazz to public investment in the industry. More “bail-out” money in other words.
The Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States along with many other groups are tackling the problem of corporate interests in the universities. A society is dependent upon its knowledge base for making sound decisions to carry it forward on a wise path. With the corporations at the universities we are getting bogus, manipulated science. You can think of the Dr. Olivieri case in Ontario and other examples.
A Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan will be a huge obstacle to moving Saskatchewan onto a renewable energy path, in preparation for what looms on the horizon.
The University of Saskatchewan was built through the years by the people of Saskatchewan for the education of their children.
It is in the process of being stolen by corporate interests. More accurately, collaborators in Government and in the University are giving it away to corporate interests. . . . Monsanto, Cameco. It’s not education or higher learning. It’s manipulated “science” and agendas that do not serve the public interest. GMO wheat and corporate owned seed – no one wants it, it benefits no one. It serves one function and that is to enrich the corporation and its shareholders.
So now Cameco, Areva, Bruce Power, Richard Florizone and the Government will see that there is a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan. Through corporate influence in the machinery of government and education, the citizens of Saskatchewan are investing more millions of dollars in a pursuit that does not serve the public interest.
F. IGNORE YOUR OWN RESOURCE DEPLETION, COVET YOUR NEIGHBOUR'S
The corporate interest in diminishing democracy to gain control of resources (water and air pollution, mineral extraction, etc.) to make profits for the shareholders of the corporation has an “iffy” side to it. It potentially creates tensions in the population.
People don’t like it when their water becomes contaminated, their lakes acidified, the air polluted and so on. As we have seen, first with Ludwig Wiebo in Alberta and now with the pipeline incidents near Dawson Creek, people will fight back to save their children from disease and developmental problems caused by poisonous emissions.
The corporations and government officials working with them, can’t have that. People defending their lands are labeled “terrorist” and the “anti-terrorist RCMP squad” is assigned to ferret them out. I read the newspaper headline on May 28th, “Federal minister warns of homegrown terrorism” and agreed. Yes, terrorists are “grown”. They grow in the fields of injustice. There is nothing just about taking what does not belong to you. “Thou shalt not covet … “
The water/energy example makes obvious the danger: run yourself out of water and energy, as is the case in the western U.S. and you covet your neighbours’ supply. The only way you can take theirs is by political manipulation or by moving to a police state or by dropping bombs.
People in Saskatchewan are naïve if they think that somehow, we are exempt from the tactics used to secure American and Canadian corporate mining interests in other countries. Patrice Lumumba in the Congo over American corporate interests in rich copper mines. Falconbridge Canada over water for its mines in South American countries.
The story is always the same. Take and/or poison the water, run the local population from self-supporting people with dignity, into a sick people unable to water themselves and grow their crops, forced to migrate to urban slums. You know the examples from other countries. Need I mention what happened to the people of Iraq because of their oil resource? Because others depleted their own resource and then …
G. THE PETRO-STATE. DWAIN LINGENFELTER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF NEXEN OIL & GAS IS NOW THE LEADER OF THE “OPPOSITION” NDP PARTY IN SASKATCHEWAN (Saturday, June 6, 2009)
Alberta has the one-party rule of a petro-state. The ruling party does not need the electorate; resource revenues insulate the Government from citizens. If they become unhappy, the Government has the money to buy them candy. The Government works with and for the petro-companies.
Saskatchewan now has, unequivocally, the petro-state - just a slight variation on the Alberta model. It does not matter which party is in power. Only in appearance is it a two-party system. There is no “opposition” party to keep the ruling party in check.
We have Brad Wall and the Sask Party supporting the nuclear (and oil and gas) industry. We have Dwain Lingenfelter, Vice-President of Nexen Oil and Gas, elected to the leadership of “the other” party, the NDP (Saturday, June 6, 2009). Before Lingenfelter went to Nexen Oil and Gas he was Deputy Premier of the NDP under Premier Roy Romanow. He served from September 2000 at Nexen and is now back with the NDP. Nexen has financial interests in the tar sands right next to the Saskatchewan border. They must have the nuclear energy source for tar sands development.
Democracies have rules about revolving doors between government and the industries it is supposed to regulate. They often have rules about corporate donations to political parties. We have neither and we have diminished democracy, conveniently.
3. "INNUMERABLE MORE PROBLEMS"
A. USING NUCLEAR TO STAY ON FOSSIL FUELS, CITIZENS INVESTING IN OBSOLETE INDUSTRIES
Brad Wall speaks of the default position to nuclear power as “doing nothing”. And the “innumerable problems” we’ll face if we do nothing.
We will have “innumerable problems” if we pursue a nuclear agenda. The prudent position in the context of non-renewable resource depletion is an aggressive move forward into renewable energy sources. Investing ANY money in nuclear reactors so we can accelerate the depletion is to ensure we arrive at the end of the fossil fuel road without any back-up.
The self-destruction will be economic because we’ve invested in the wrong place and it will be environmental because we will have exacerbated climate change instead of doing everything we can to mitigate.
We will have built expensive nuclear reactors to develop expensive tar sands. Just the existing tar sands development in Alberta is killing northern Saskatchewan because the sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide carry downwind and fall as acid rain.
Even if people in Saskatchewan mount enough resistance to un-do the decision to build nuclear reactors and a Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan, Brad Wall’s statement needs to be challenged. “We will cause ourselves innumerable more problems if our default position is to do nothing”.
We will have unsolvable problems if we don’t get off fossil fuels. Building nuclear reactors so we can stay on fossil fuels is to self-destruct.
B. THE ANALOGY OF THE DRUG ADDICT
There is deliberate self-destruction south of the border; no water and no electricity means the end of the civilization as we know it. The first time I visited the Arizona desert in the early 1980’s I knew that without changes in their use of water they would be after Canadian water within a short time. I’m not a water specialist. I have some common sense. You don’t need any training to see the obvious. At that time I hadn’t made the connection that with water we are also talking electricity if the supply is hydro.
The analogy of the drug addict is so appropriate:
- the person can’t get off the drug, makes one bad decision after another.
- Others stand by watching, able to see clearly that the end is self-destruction and unable to understand why someone would deliberately self-destruct.
C. NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR MORE TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENT WILL FINISH OFF THE NORTH OF SASKATCHEWAN
If Brad Wall, Richard Florizone, Cameco, Bruce Power, Areva, OilSands Quest and Nexen Oil and Gas (Vice President Dwain Lingenfelter, until his decision to come back to Saskatchewan politics) have their way, we will finish off the North.
Northern peoples already know that the lakes are acidifying. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment reported four years ago that some parts of northern Saskatchewan were already past critical load limits for acidity. I understand that the Government of Saskatchewan is sitting on a new report that confirms the condition has worsened since that CCME Report in 2005. That seems quite logical: tar sands production has increased dramatically in the last few years.
Brad Wall makes the connection for the investors in the United States. I don’t know that he has been as frank with the people of Saskatchewan: “Wall also discussed Saskatchewan's interest in developing small nuclear reactor technology as a way to replace the burning of natural gas in the production of oilsands oil.”
In order to maintain the wealth of the oil companies, they have to have the nuclear reactors and they have to spin the lie that the nuclear reactors are "clean and green". The world is screaming that the industry is using up the dwindling supply of relatively clean natural gas, to produce very dirty, greenhouse-gas-producing tar sands oil. The oil and gas companies have almost lost their social license to operate, because of the tar sands.
D. EXPERIENCE WITH PRIVATIZED ELECTRICITY SALES, THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS IN 2000
(I (we) are indebted to Margaret Lewis from Theodore, SK for making the important connection to the California experience.)
Sask Power is a crown corporation whose mandate it is to provide electricity for the people of Saskatchewan.
Bruce Power setting up shop in Saskatchewan with help from the Government has the effect of moving the functions of Sask Power into the hands of a private company. Plans to export electricity mean that we will lose control over where and for how much the electricity is sold, to us or to others.
People will remember the California fiasco, the experiment with exactly the same thing. I don’t know why we would want to duplicate that experience. The lesson was pretty clear.
The California electricity crisis of 2000, leading to large price rises and blackouts, was caused by the dominance of a small group of generators (Woo 2001); a number of states in the USA suspended their plans for de-regulation as a result.
From “Why Did California’s Lights Go Out?” by Brendan Martin, 2002
http://www.publicworld.org/docs/calielec.pdf
“ . . . when California Governor Gray Davis said (these) words in his 2001 State of the State address, he was not about to tell his electors anything they did not already know. Referring to how the Golden State had lived up to its reputation of way-out fads by partially de-regulating and privatizing its electricity supply, Governor Davis said:
“We must face reality: California’s deregulation scheme is a colossal and dangerous failure. It has not lowered consumer prices. And it has not increased supply. In fact, it has resulted in skyrocketing prices, price-gouging, and an unreliable supply of electricity. In short, an energy nightmare . . . we have lost control over our own power. We have surrendered the decisions about where electricity is sold - and for how much - to private companies with only one objective: maximizing unheard-of profits.”
The writing is on the wall for the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta if Bruce Power builds nuclear reactors in our provinces. The writing is on the wall, if we want to read it.
(4) IN CONCLUSION
At this writing, five of the public consultation meetings on the Future of the Nuclear and Uranium industries in Saskatchewan and two of the “stakeholder meetings” have been held. Attendance has been solid. The message is consistent: a large majority of citizens do not want nuclear, they want investment in conservation and renewables.
That pattern of response will intensify: the meetings have moved from the south of the Province which is distant from the location of the proposed nuclear reactors and potential radioactive waste disposal sites.
The next meetings are in the North Saskatchewan River Valley where there is already awareness and large-scale resistance aroused by Bruce Power’s attempts to buy options on land in the River Valley northeast of Lloydminster for the reactors. The concern now is that the Government will give or sell publicly-held lands to Bruce Power.
Why is there a large push behind the nuclear business in Saskatchewan and Alberta, in spite of large resistance to nuclear and uranium development by citizens? Why isn’t it Sask Power that would “own” the reactors?
The electricity sales have to be made by a company, in order for there to be large profits for anyone. There is huge money to be made in selling electricity, whether to the western U.S., or to the tar sands companies. Who can in turn make big money for their shareholders. Big money can be made in both instances because the resource base is being depleted. As resources become more scarce there is more money to be made. And especially if you can get the public to foot large portions of the “cost” side of the development.
A petro-state structure, complete with outrageous conflicts-of-interest (diminished democracy), is required if the monied interests are to be served. The public interest is clearly and urgently in conservation and in investment in small-scale, decentralized electrical generation.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Finley
Sandra Finley Email Network
656 Saskatchewan Crescent East
Saskatoon SK S7N 0L1
306-373-8078
sabest1@sasktel.net
===============
(5) APPENDED
A. CONVERSATION
i. SITUATION IN THE WESTERN STATES
From Koren. My responses are in italics:
So talking to some Sask Power people I found out that they're working on strengthening the grid straight south, so that we could sell power to (I assume) Montana, and North Dakota.
See Joe Anglin’s email below. He explains the situation in Alberta with building the grid straight south. The situation here is parallel. And it is all parallel to what is currently happening in B.C. It looks like they (in Alberta) are heading to the Supreme Court on it.
The need for electricity and water, especially in the western States is almost beyond remedy. The Colorado River with the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams (the 2 largest water reservoirs in the U.S.) is so overdrawn that the reservoirs (Lake Powell and Lake Mead) are in danger of drying up. People noticed the declining water levels. A scientific report was commissioned. It reported in Feb 2008: the reservoirs have a 50/50 chance of being bone dry by 2021. But the power-generating capacity will be lost before that: a 50/50 chance that it will be gone by 2017. Eight years from now.
Those 2 hydro-electric dams and the reservoirs feed MILLIONS of people. The Hoover Dam is 30 miles south of Las Vegas. The water goes by aquaduct to Vegas, Los Angele, San Diego, etc.. We're looking at parts of Nevada, Arizona, California. The population of California is equal to the whole of Canada (Californians, of course, don't ALL get their water from the Colorado River - I just want to make the point that it is MILLIONS of people who are in serious trouble. Tim Barnett from the University of California at San Diego told me that 30,000,000 people are dependent upon the Colorado River – still a population the size of Canada but spread over 3 or more states). There is a lot of irrigation farming (fruits and vegetables that we import) and industry that is absolutely dependent upon the Colorado River. The summertime glacial melt feed for the Rivers (including the South and North Sask Rivers) will be gone all too soon.
A few years ago, closer to home - in Idaho, the Idaho Government paid out 73 million dollars to the irrigation farmers to turn off their irrigation pumps. It was a hot summer. There wasn't enough water to generate the electricity to run the air conditioners of the urban population and simultaneously meet the electricity demands of the irrigation pumps.
The Americans are finally now taking some appropriate steps. Like banning the water fountains at the golf courses and hotels in the desert. Will it be soon enough? Personally I think there will have to be large re-locations of people. But the area is projected to have a population inflow of 10,000,000. If they knew the situation they wouldn't go.
ii. SIMON REISMAN ON MONEY TO BE MADE
A book entitled “To the Last Drop", written in/around 1982:
- the benefits of diverting Canadian water (it can be "virtual" water, too, by exporting products like electricity) to the U.S. were articulated by Canada's chief negotiator for the Free Trade Agreement, Simon Reisman under Brian Mulroney
- the benefits are that the U.S. needs the water (and electricity) so badly that a whole lot of money can be made. Reisman said then that so much money could be made that it would change the balance of power on the North American continent. Canada will become the powerhouse because we have the water and we can dictate the sales price. Never mind the huge infrastructure costs (like canals and power transmission lines). The Americans will need it so badly that they will pay the exorbitant infrastructure costs.
He was wrong about the last point. If the Government and Corporations like Bruce Power have their way, Canadian taxpayers will foot much of the infrastructure costs. We aren't as broke as the American taxpayers, mired in Federal Government debt! Mind you, Harper is racking up a good chunk of debt now, too. And he budgeted a bunch of money for the nuclear industry.
Water was supposed to have been specifically left out of the NAFTA. At the last minute, at the 11th hour, – oops! - - someone forgot and water did not get a specific exemption. And by NAFTA rules, once we start exporting the water (or electricity), we can never stop, no matter what need for it we might have in Canada.
iii. LINE FROM A LIFE-RAFT TO THE TITANIC
Manitoba already sells electricity into the States (from hydro projects in northern MB). Chiefs have gone to the buyers to try and persuade them to stop buying Manitoban electricity because the dams, with the consequent changes to eco-systems, are making it impossible for First Nations to live off their lands. They are reduced to further poverty while other people are becoming rich from the sales of the electricity.
I don’t like to be stingy with our resources while other people suffer. But we are in an arid province. It is projected that 10 million MORE people will immigrate into the southwestern U.S. The crisis cannot be solved by sending our water and electricity to them. It will only prolong the agony AND place us in a position like theirs. Drained and bankrupt. The consequences of ignorance, greed and a false belief that we can eat, drink and heat/cool our homes with money. The consequence of a serious distortion of values mixed with stupidity. It’s not about being stingy with our resources. It’s about whether you allow yourself to be raped. There is nothing admirable about being naïve.
Sending electricity and water, virtual or otherwise, to the U.S. is like throwing a line from a life-raft to the Titanic while she's going under. We'll go down with her.
The nuclear agenda serves someone's interests, but not ours.
===============
B. THE MATL LINE, LETHBRIDGE TO USA, APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
THE ALBERTA PARALLEL TO SASK.:
Date: May 6, 2009 9:44:06 AM GMT-06:00
Subject: Action
We suffered a setback at the Alberta Court of Appeals in our efforts to stop the construction of the international MATL transmission line from Lethbridge to Great Falls Montana. In the aftermath of this setback, now is not the time to roll over and give up! Too much hinges upon our efforts to continue this fight – we cannot and must not stop now.
Nuclear power plants cannot be built in Alberta, if transmission lines are not in place before the first foundation is poured. Unparalleled tarsands expansion will not be forthcoming without the addition of numerous nuclear power plants.
If we allow the MATL transmission line to be built, every battle thereafter becomes more difficult, particularly in view of the new Land Assembly Area Act. If we defeat the MATL transmission line here and now, private investors will become less likely to invest in nuclear power, particularly if they see an increasing risk of not getting their product (electricity) transmitted to the U.S.
Two judges voted against our appeal, and one judge voted for us in the MATL appeal. We came ever so close to winning this fight. However we always expected that this fight would continue to the Supreme Court of Canada; we just wanted to go to Ottawa as the victors of a lower court ruling.
We are now evaluating our options and legal strategy. In view of the new Land Assembly Area Act we are now faced with possibly two Supreme Court of Canada challenges rather than one. We will be applying to the Supreme Court of Canada to continue the MATL appeal as soon as funds are in place.
To achieve the impossible, we only need to do what is possible. We need your help and I am asking you to contribute to this legal battle now. But most importantly, we need you to help raise funds for these legal battles.
(These are very good people. I’ve met and had supper with one of them. I sent them a cheque. We are all in this together. The UDP plan is to export electricity to Alberta. Private interests, MATL, are building the transmission line from Lethbridge south.)
== == == == == == == ==
C. SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY. CONNECTION TO UNIVERSITY CENTRE OF NUCLEAR STUDIES AND EXPORT ELECTRICITY TO THE U.S.
Idaho National Laboratory is a science and engineering national laboratory dedicated to meeting the nation's environmental, energy, nuclear technology, ...
I have skim-read reports but do not know the terms of the Agreements signed by the Governments of Saskatchewan (March 2009) and Alberta with the Idaho National Laboratory with regard to nuclear energy. My impression is that they confirm the opinion stated repeatedly at the Public Consultation Meetings: the deals have already been made. This is bogus consultation.
With thanks to Dick:
Just another piece that fits the puzzle is the Memorandum of Understanding, an agreement that our government (Enterprise Saskatchewan) signed in March with the Idaho National Laboratory which in essence supports the development of the proposed Western Inland Energy Corridor.
This proposed corridor will cover a vast territory including Montana, Idaho, Colorado which stretches to the Pacific coast. The US energy support services (from the Idaho National Laboratory): exported from our province will be nuclear power generated electricity . Apparently a similar agreement between the Laboratory and the Alberta government through the Alberta Research Council links the future exports of electricity to the US from the Peace River nuclear reactor.
------------------------------------
(i) http://network.utilities.energy-busines ... ian_court_
rebuffs_matls_300_mw_power_transmission_line_
legal_challenge_090505
Energy Business Review
Tonbridge Declares That Canadian Court Rebuffs MATL’s 300 MW Power Transmission Line Legal Challenge
Published:05-May-2009
By Staff Reporter
Tonbridge Power Inc. (Tonbridge), 100% controlling stakeholder of the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL) transmission line project to link the electricity areas of Alberta and the US via a 300 megawatts (MW) transmission line, has declared that the Alberta Court of Appeal has rebuffed the landowner petition of the permit given by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board to the MATL transmission line. The MATL Line has been granted all necessary permits in the US and Canada.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
ADAMSON: RESPONSE TO THE UDP REPORT: HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR
by Oscar » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:18 am
A RESPONSE TO THE UDP REPORT: HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE
By Bill Adamson, Saskatoon – May 27, 2009
It all began with the Manhattan Project in 1945. Scientists learned how to trigger nuclear fission, and how to make nuclear bombs. The USA Air Force dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, and massacred 220,500 people.
Then the new slogan became, “Atoms for Peace,” with the byword of “Electricity--too cheap to metre.” But it never happened. There was a rush in the 1970’s and 1980’s to build nuclear reactors---20 in Canada, 104 in the USA, 430 worldwide. The costs and expenses were enormous. Canada developed a debt of $78 billion, with $28 billion in “stranded debt”, for which debt Ontario households still pay an extra fee on each monthly electric bill. Without debate in Parliament, the Federal Government has granted a series of subsidies now totalling $18 billion dollars. These reactors have never proven economical or self-sustaining, always needing federal subsidies to survive. The former myth of cheap electricity was illusory.
Moreover, nuclear fission produces terribly dangerous by-products—some 211 in number. From fission, and the changing configuration of atoms and molecules, these wastes emerge, some of them chemicals not even found in the natural world—all of them deadly dangerous either chemically or from radioactivity. A handful of such waste held at arms length, will kill a person in one minute. Such wastes must be handled robotically and cooled for seven years in pools of water, then stored in steel casks for many years, and remain deadly dangerous for thousands of years.
The USA has built up a stockpile of 70,000 metric tonnes of used fuel rods, enough to cover a football field over 21 feet deep. Canada has stored 38,408 tonnes of nuclear waste. After 65 years, scientists still do not know what to do with it, have not developed a satisfactory disposal system.
The USA has worked for 20 years spending $13.6 billion dollars to develop a special shaft in Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Because of geological faults, earthquakes, water migration in rocks, protests of citizens of Nevada, it has proved to be unsatisfactory. President Obama has now suspended the massive funding, so for the present the USA is back to square one, and beginning new research once more.
Canadian scientists have been working on the vexing problem of nuclear waste for decades. Some six major research studies have been done, but still no satisfactory solution. (See Appendix)
Over a period of 15 years, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (AECL) carried out a massive research and developed an elaborate plan for deep rock burial of nuclear waste. Costing $700 million dollars, it published “The Environmental Impact Statement on the Geologic Disposal Concept.” Part of this research involved the Whiteshell Research Laboratory and experimental deep rock shaft at Pinawa, Manitoba. After 15 years the shaft was shut down and the project cancelled because it was constantly flooding with underground water.
In 1957, the geologists, P. Fritz and S.K. Frappe published a significant book entitled, Saline Waters and Crystalline Rocks. It revealed that under the Pre-Cambian rock in Canada, and other parts of the world, there is a large layer of salt water under extreme pressure. The continuous flooding of deep rock gold mines across Canada reveals this phenomena. Deep rock burial is not as dry and safe as it sounds! In spite of this geological knowledge, the nuclear industry keeps repeating the deep rock burial scheme as a solution. It ignores this geological study and hopes that it will go away!
In 1994 AECL produced its detailed plan and blueprint for deep rock disposal. For several years a Scientific Review Committee studied the plan and issued a Report indicating that some 90 problems still needed to be addressed.
Then the Seaborn Commission studied the AECL plan. It interviewed specialists, held consultations across Canada for eight years, spending $7 million dollars. The Commission found the Plan not acceptable.
The Federal Government contravened the Seaborn recommendation to establish an arms-length, independent, multi-specialized organization to address this issue. Instead, the government turned the whole problem over to the mine owners and vested interests to form a Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). It added the quickie principle of “the polluter pays” in order to get the predicament off of the government’s back.
Since then, the NWMO has been carrying out studies, printing booklets, taking surveys, and now initiating a “process for citing” in a deep rock depository. It has made no new discoveries or breakthroughs about how to solve this vexing problem. It has added a fancy new phrase to the mix called “Adaptive Phased Management.” This is still the original plan, but now broken down into three different stages stretching over long periods of time. It continues the “same old, same old” refrain—“Let’s do deep rock burial.” The concept remains unproven. because science can not accurately prove long term predictions.
The NWMO has declared Saskatchewan a potential dumping site for nuclear fuel waste that comes mainly from Ontario, on the grounds that uranium is mined in Saskatchewan. Strange logic!
Radioactive substances disintegrate into sub-particles so their potency is measured by how many years it takes for half of the original amount to disappear; called a ‘half-life.’ For these wastes the half–life of radium-226 is 1600 years; plutonium-239 is 24,400 years; thorium-230 is 77,000 years; cesium-135 is 2,300,000 years; iodine-129 some 15,700,000 years; uranium-238 some 4000 million years. After another half-life time span a quarter of the original amount will still be radioactive. In reality, many of these substances will remain deadly for longer than geological history!
In the face of these horrendous facts, the Report of the Uranium Development Partnership (2009) says very little. It makes bland reference to the safety of workers and members of the public (pp. 4(h), 13(A), 37(h). Later it mentions the dangers of long lived isotopes and fission products (p.70)
Finally, it does admit to the danger: “Given its radioactivity, used fuel and other high-level wastes remain hazardous to humans and the environment and need to be safely and securely contained and isolated for periods of up to hundreds of thousands of years.” (p. 74)
The writers of this Report take no responsibility for the legacy for Saskatchewan and Canada which will be inevitably left to future generations. They assume the NWMO will take care of it with deep rock burial! No mention of underlying pressurized brine. No mention of the cracks and fissures in rock following drilling and blasting. No mention of microbes and water migration in rock. No evidence that the system will really work!
In his book Small Is Beautiful, written some 36 years ago, E. F. Schumaker struggled with the problem of nuclear wastes and wrote: “ No degree of prosperity could justify the accumulation of large amounts of toxic substance which nobody knows how to make it ‘safe’ and which remain an incalculable danger to the whole of creation for historical or even geological ages. To do such a thing is a transgression against life itself, a transgression infinitely more serious than any crime perpetrated by man. The idea that a civilization could sustain itself on the basis of such a transgression is an ethical, spiritual and metaphysical monstrosity. It means conducting the economic affairs of man as if people did not matter at all.” (pp.120-121).
The UDP Report is very unscientific ! It should be condemned for all the facts and realities that have been omitted and ignored. It is simply a lop-sided sales pitch to sell nuclear reactors and associated uranium technology to Saskatchewan citizens. We cannot allow such a dangerous, and unforgiving science to be foisted on our people, with the construction of nuclear reactors, and the accompanying accumulation of such deadly high level nuclear wastes.
Dr. Bill Adamson, Saskatoon, SK May 27, 2009
------------
UDP Presentation – May 27, 2009 - APPENDIX 1 - NUCLEAR REPORTS
1976 ---The Flowers Report—“Nuclear Energy and the Environment.” By Sir Brian Flowers, published by the UK Royal Commission on the Environment
--warned of weapons proliferation concerns
--unresolved problems of nuclear waste management
--nuclear raises issues of unusual range and difficulty which are political and ethical, as well a technical in character.
1977—Hare Report—laid out the geologic disposal concept of AECL, but emphasized that the safety of the concept has to be “validated.”
1978---Porter Commission Report—“Race Against Time,” Report of the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Planning.
--recommended a moratorium on nuclear power unless a safe method of waste storage for millennia could be demonstrated.
--opposed centralized storage because it presupposed future reprocessing
--no scientific proof geologic disposal is adequate for future generations.
--“Governments must recognize that decisions about nuclear power are fundamentally political in the widest sense of the word; they relate to the quality of life and quality of the environment; they cannot be left to the utility alone.” (p.xviii)
1980---Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs—Three reports after the Three Mile Island Meltdown:
- The Safety of Ontario’s Nuclear Reactors
- The Management of Nuclear Fuel Waste
- The Mining, Milling, and Refining of Uranium in Ontario
1987---The Brundtland Report—by Gros Harlem Brundtland, Chairperson, “United Nations World Commission on Environmental Development: Our Common Future,” (Oxford University Press, (1987)
1998---Seaborn Panel Report, by the Seaborn Environmental Assessment Panel.
--found that geologic disposal should be studied further.
--should not now be accepted as Canada’s policy
--not publicly acceptable, and safety concept is not established.
By Bill Adamson, Saskatoon – May 27, 2009
It all began with the Manhattan Project in 1945. Scientists learned how to trigger nuclear fission, and how to make nuclear bombs. The USA Air Force dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, and massacred 220,500 people.
Then the new slogan became, “Atoms for Peace,” with the byword of “Electricity--too cheap to metre.” But it never happened. There was a rush in the 1970’s and 1980’s to build nuclear reactors---20 in Canada, 104 in the USA, 430 worldwide. The costs and expenses were enormous. Canada developed a debt of $78 billion, with $28 billion in “stranded debt”, for which debt Ontario households still pay an extra fee on each monthly electric bill. Without debate in Parliament, the Federal Government has granted a series of subsidies now totalling $18 billion dollars. These reactors have never proven economical or self-sustaining, always needing federal subsidies to survive. The former myth of cheap electricity was illusory.
Moreover, nuclear fission produces terribly dangerous by-products—some 211 in number. From fission, and the changing configuration of atoms and molecules, these wastes emerge, some of them chemicals not even found in the natural world—all of them deadly dangerous either chemically or from radioactivity. A handful of such waste held at arms length, will kill a person in one minute. Such wastes must be handled robotically and cooled for seven years in pools of water, then stored in steel casks for many years, and remain deadly dangerous for thousands of years.
The USA has built up a stockpile of 70,000 metric tonnes of used fuel rods, enough to cover a football field over 21 feet deep. Canada has stored 38,408 tonnes of nuclear waste. After 65 years, scientists still do not know what to do with it, have not developed a satisfactory disposal system.
The USA has worked for 20 years spending $13.6 billion dollars to develop a special shaft in Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Because of geological faults, earthquakes, water migration in rocks, protests of citizens of Nevada, it has proved to be unsatisfactory. President Obama has now suspended the massive funding, so for the present the USA is back to square one, and beginning new research once more.
Canadian scientists have been working on the vexing problem of nuclear waste for decades. Some six major research studies have been done, but still no satisfactory solution. (See Appendix)
Over a period of 15 years, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (AECL) carried out a massive research and developed an elaborate plan for deep rock burial of nuclear waste. Costing $700 million dollars, it published “The Environmental Impact Statement on the Geologic Disposal Concept.” Part of this research involved the Whiteshell Research Laboratory and experimental deep rock shaft at Pinawa, Manitoba. After 15 years the shaft was shut down and the project cancelled because it was constantly flooding with underground water.
In 1957, the geologists, P. Fritz and S.K. Frappe published a significant book entitled, Saline Waters and Crystalline Rocks. It revealed that under the Pre-Cambian rock in Canada, and other parts of the world, there is a large layer of salt water under extreme pressure. The continuous flooding of deep rock gold mines across Canada reveals this phenomena. Deep rock burial is not as dry and safe as it sounds! In spite of this geological knowledge, the nuclear industry keeps repeating the deep rock burial scheme as a solution. It ignores this geological study and hopes that it will go away!
In 1994 AECL produced its detailed plan and blueprint for deep rock disposal. For several years a Scientific Review Committee studied the plan and issued a Report indicating that some 90 problems still needed to be addressed.
Then the Seaborn Commission studied the AECL plan. It interviewed specialists, held consultations across Canada for eight years, spending $7 million dollars. The Commission found the Plan not acceptable.
The Federal Government contravened the Seaborn recommendation to establish an arms-length, independent, multi-specialized organization to address this issue. Instead, the government turned the whole problem over to the mine owners and vested interests to form a Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). It added the quickie principle of “the polluter pays” in order to get the predicament off of the government’s back.
Since then, the NWMO has been carrying out studies, printing booklets, taking surveys, and now initiating a “process for citing” in a deep rock depository. It has made no new discoveries or breakthroughs about how to solve this vexing problem. It has added a fancy new phrase to the mix called “Adaptive Phased Management.” This is still the original plan, but now broken down into three different stages stretching over long periods of time. It continues the “same old, same old” refrain—“Let’s do deep rock burial.” The concept remains unproven. because science can not accurately prove long term predictions.
The NWMO has declared Saskatchewan a potential dumping site for nuclear fuel waste that comes mainly from Ontario, on the grounds that uranium is mined in Saskatchewan. Strange logic!
Radioactive substances disintegrate into sub-particles so their potency is measured by how many years it takes for half of the original amount to disappear; called a ‘half-life.’ For these wastes the half–life of radium-226 is 1600 years; plutonium-239 is 24,400 years; thorium-230 is 77,000 years; cesium-135 is 2,300,000 years; iodine-129 some 15,700,000 years; uranium-238 some 4000 million years. After another half-life time span a quarter of the original amount will still be radioactive. In reality, many of these substances will remain deadly for longer than geological history!
In the face of these horrendous facts, the Report of the Uranium Development Partnership (2009) says very little. It makes bland reference to the safety of workers and members of the public (pp. 4(h), 13(A), 37(h). Later it mentions the dangers of long lived isotopes and fission products (p.70)
Finally, it does admit to the danger: “Given its radioactivity, used fuel and other high-level wastes remain hazardous to humans and the environment and need to be safely and securely contained and isolated for periods of up to hundreds of thousands of years.” (p. 74)
The writers of this Report take no responsibility for the legacy for Saskatchewan and Canada which will be inevitably left to future generations. They assume the NWMO will take care of it with deep rock burial! No mention of underlying pressurized brine. No mention of the cracks and fissures in rock following drilling and blasting. No mention of microbes and water migration in rock. No evidence that the system will really work!
In his book Small Is Beautiful, written some 36 years ago, E. F. Schumaker struggled with the problem of nuclear wastes and wrote: “ No degree of prosperity could justify the accumulation of large amounts of toxic substance which nobody knows how to make it ‘safe’ and which remain an incalculable danger to the whole of creation for historical or even geological ages. To do such a thing is a transgression against life itself, a transgression infinitely more serious than any crime perpetrated by man. The idea that a civilization could sustain itself on the basis of such a transgression is an ethical, spiritual and metaphysical monstrosity. It means conducting the economic affairs of man as if people did not matter at all.” (pp.120-121).
The UDP Report is very unscientific ! It should be condemned for all the facts and realities that have been omitted and ignored. It is simply a lop-sided sales pitch to sell nuclear reactors and associated uranium technology to Saskatchewan citizens. We cannot allow such a dangerous, and unforgiving science to be foisted on our people, with the construction of nuclear reactors, and the accompanying accumulation of such deadly high level nuclear wastes.
Dr. Bill Adamson, Saskatoon, SK May 27, 2009
------------
UDP Presentation – May 27, 2009 - APPENDIX 1 - NUCLEAR REPORTS
1976 ---The Flowers Report—“Nuclear Energy and the Environment.” By Sir Brian Flowers, published by the UK Royal Commission on the Environment
--warned of weapons proliferation concerns
--unresolved problems of nuclear waste management
--nuclear raises issues of unusual range and difficulty which are political and ethical, as well a technical in character.
1977—Hare Report—laid out the geologic disposal concept of AECL, but emphasized that the safety of the concept has to be “validated.”
1978---Porter Commission Report—“Race Against Time,” Report of the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Planning.
--recommended a moratorium on nuclear power unless a safe method of waste storage for millennia could be demonstrated.
--opposed centralized storage because it presupposed future reprocessing
--no scientific proof geologic disposal is adequate for future generations.
--“Governments must recognize that decisions about nuclear power are fundamentally political in the widest sense of the word; they relate to the quality of life and quality of the environment; they cannot be left to the utility alone.” (p.xviii)
1980---Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs—Three reports after the Three Mile Island Meltdown:
- The Safety of Ontario’s Nuclear Reactors
- The Management of Nuclear Fuel Waste
- The Mining, Milling, and Refining of Uranium in Ontario
1987---The Brundtland Report—by Gros Harlem Brundtland, Chairperson, “United Nations World Commission on Environmental Development: Our Common Future,” (Oxford University Press, (1987)
1998---Seaborn Panel Report, by the Seaborn Environmental Assessment Panel.
--found that geologic disposal should be studied further.
--should not now be accepted as Canada’s policy
--not publicly acceptable, and safety concept is not established.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
by Oscar » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:18 pm
RESPONSE TO THE UDP REPORT #2 June 15, 2009
(Statement made to 750 people at the Saskatoon Public Hearing on June 15)
Moderator Dan Perrins, Saskatchewan Neighbours!
Where will we put the swimming pool? If a nuclear reactor is placed in Saskatchewan, it will need a swimming pool to cool off the burnt fuel rods for 7 years before they are placed in casks for the next 10 to 100 years.
Will it be in Premier Brad Wall’s backyard? Will you offer your backyard? You would be well paid for it! Will it be in Lloydminster, or North Battleford, or Prince Albert?
This nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous! If you take a handful and hold it at arm’s length, it would kill you in about one minute from the extreme radioactivity!
When fission occurs, it changes around the electrons, protons, and neutrons so that 211 different lethal chemicals are produced. Their radioactivity is measured by their half-life—the time radioactive disintegrations go on till half the source is gone, then the next half, then the next half, this going on, frequently for hundreds and thousands of years.
The USA, with their 104 swimming pools, have built up a stockpile of 70,000 metric tonnes—enough to cover a football field 20 feet deep. It has spent $13.6 billion dollars over 20 years to build a special deep rock depository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Because of geologic faults, earthquakes, water migration in rocks, protests of citizens of Nevada, it has proved unsatisfactory. President Obama has suspended the massive funding, so now the USA is back to square one, starting research all over again.
Canada has accumulated 38,408 metric tonnes of high level nuclear waste—enough to fill five hockey rinks up to the boards. After 60 years scientists still do not know how safely to dispose of it.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) took 15 years of research at a cost of $700 million dollars to develop an elaborate plan for deep rock burial. Part of the research included the Whiteshell deep rock shaft near Pinawa, Manitoba. Recently, it has been shut down and abandoned because of continuous flooding by water, like all the deep rock gold mines across Canada. Geologists have known for years that there is salt water, under tremendous pressure, under the Pre-Cambrian rock in Canada. Not as dry and solid as it sounds!
The Scientific Review Panel examined the AECL plan and found 90 problems that needed to be addressed. The Seaborn Commission spent $7 million dollars and eight years holding consultations all across Canada, and found the AECL plan unacceptable.
The Federal government contravened the Seaborn recommendations, and gave the whole problem over to the uranium companies to fix. Whereupon, these corporations formed the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) which has now come up with a deep rock burial plan again.
Now just recall the staggering facts about these nuclear wastes and their longevity in terms of their half-life, for instance:
radium-226 = 1600 years
plutonium-239 = 24,400 years
thorium-230 = 77,000 years
cesium-135 = 2,300,000 years
iodine-129 = 15,700,000 years
uranium-238 = 4000 million years
The UDP Report says very little about these horrendous facts. It makes brief reference to the safety of workers and citizens, and the dangers of long-lived isotopes and fission products, (pp 4(b), 13A, 37(b), 70) It does admit: “Given its radioactivity, used fuel and other high level wastes remain hazardous to humans and the environment and need to be safely and securely contained and isolated for periods of up to hundreds and thousands of years.”
(p.74)
But the writers of this Report take no responsibility for the legacy that will be inevitably left to future generations of Saskatchewan citizens. I expect that their response will be that the NWMO will take care of the problem with deep rock burial. No mention of underlying pressurized brine. No mention of the cracks and fissures in rock following drilling and blasting. No mention of microbes and water migration in rock. No evidence that the system will work. No acknowledgement that scientists cant predict reliably that far into the future.
Moreover, the revised NWMO plan is simply a revised version of the earlier AECL plan, stretched out over three long stages, encompassing a hundred years or so, with a fancy title added, namely, “Adaptive Phased Management.” No new discoveries since the AECL plan.
Now, the NWMO is undertaking a “citing process” for burying nuclear waste in Saskatchewan. The workers of Saskatchewan mined and converted the ore into yellowcake, at risk of radiation danger to themselves. Ontario corporations used it to produce electricity, and profited from that electricity. But now, Saskatchewan should take back the long term poisonous wastes for good measure. Strange logic!
So, two big questions remain. Whether or not, we will construct a swimming pool? Or, where will we locate the swimming pool?
Dr. Bill Adamson. Saskatoon.
(Statement made to 750 people at the Saskatoon Public Hearing on June 15)
Moderator Dan Perrins, Saskatchewan Neighbours!
Where will we put the swimming pool? If a nuclear reactor is placed in Saskatchewan, it will need a swimming pool to cool off the burnt fuel rods for 7 years before they are placed in casks for the next 10 to 100 years.
Will it be in Premier Brad Wall’s backyard? Will you offer your backyard? You would be well paid for it! Will it be in Lloydminster, or North Battleford, or Prince Albert?
This nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous! If you take a handful and hold it at arm’s length, it would kill you in about one minute from the extreme radioactivity!
When fission occurs, it changes around the electrons, protons, and neutrons so that 211 different lethal chemicals are produced. Their radioactivity is measured by their half-life—the time radioactive disintegrations go on till half the source is gone, then the next half, then the next half, this going on, frequently for hundreds and thousands of years.
The USA, with their 104 swimming pools, have built up a stockpile of 70,000 metric tonnes—enough to cover a football field 20 feet deep. It has spent $13.6 billion dollars over 20 years to build a special deep rock depository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Because of geologic faults, earthquakes, water migration in rocks, protests of citizens of Nevada, it has proved unsatisfactory. President Obama has suspended the massive funding, so now the USA is back to square one, starting research all over again.
Canada has accumulated 38,408 metric tonnes of high level nuclear waste—enough to fill five hockey rinks up to the boards. After 60 years scientists still do not know how safely to dispose of it.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) took 15 years of research at a cost of $700 million dollars to develop an elaborate plan for deep rock burial. Part of the research included the Whiteshell deep rock shaft near Pinawa, Manitoba. Recently, it has been shut down and abandoned because of continuous flooding by water, like all the deep rock gold mines across Canada. Geologists have known for years that there is salt water, under tremendous pressure, under the Pre-Cambrian rock in Canada. Not as dry and solid as it sounds!
The Scientific Review Panel examined the AECL plan and found 90 problems that needed to be addressed. The Seaborn Commission spent $7 million dollars and eight years holding consultations all across Canada, and found the AECL plan unacceptable.
The Federal government contravened the Seaborn recommendations, and gave the whole problem over to the uranium companies to fix. Whereupon, these corporations formed the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) which has now come up with a deep rock burial plan again.
Now just recall the staggering facts about these nuclear wastes and their longevity in terms of their half-life, for instance:
radium-226 = 1600 years
plutonium-239 = 24,400 years
thorium-230 = 77,000 years
cesium-135 = 2,300,000 years
iodine-129 = 15,700,000 years
uranium-238 = 4000 million years
The UDP Report says very little about these horrendous facts. It makes brief reference to the safety of workers and citizens, and the dangers of long-lived isotopes and fission products, (pp 4(b), 13A, 37(b), 70) It does admit: “Given its radioactivity, used fuel and other high level wastes remain hazardous to humans and the environment and need to be safely and securely contained and isolated for periods of up to hundreds and thousands of years.”
(p.74)
But the writers of this Report take no responsibility for the legacy that will be inevitably left to future generations of Saskatchewan citizens. I expect that their response will be that the NWMO will take care of the problem with deep rock burial. No mention of underlying pressurized brine. No mention of the cracks and fissures in rock following drilling and blasting. No mention of microbes and water migration in rock. No evidence that the system will work. No acknowledgement that scientists cant predict reliably that far into the future.
Moreover, the revised NWMO plan is simply a revised version of the earlier AECL plan, stretched out over three long stages, encompassing a hundred years or so, with a fancy title added, namely, “Adaptive Phased Management.” No new discoveries since the AECL plan.
Now, the NWMO is undertaking a “citing process” for burying nuclear waste in Saskatchewan. The workers of Saskatchewan mined and converted the ore into yellowcake, at risk of radiation danger to themselves. Ontario corporations used it to produce electricity, and profited from that electricity. But now, Saskatchewan should take back the long term poisonous wastes for good measure. Strange logic!
So, two big questions remain. Whether or not, we will construct a swimming pool? Or, where will we locate the swimming pool?
Dr. Bill Adamson. Saskatoon.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Lemstra-CCPA/SUN UDP Presentation - June 23.09
by Oscar » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:44 pm
EXPOSURE TO RADIATION and HEALTH OUTCOMES
Mark Lemstra BSc, MSc, MSc, MPH, DrSc, DrPH, PhD, PhD
Commission
This report was commissioned by the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives (Saskatchewan office) and the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses. Verbal agreement to proceed was granted on May 28, 2009 for a report to be completed by June 18, 2009. The report is to be presented to the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan Public Consultation Process on June 23, 2009.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/~ASSETS/DOCUMENT/
Saskatchewan_Pubs/2009/Radiation_and_health.pdf
Context
In October 2008, the Government of Saskatchewan established the Uranium Development Partnership to examine uranium resources. The report Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan was submitted March 31, 2009. On April 8, 2009, the Government of Saskatchewan initiated a public consultation process on the recommendations of the report. One of the recommendations was that “further work needs to be done to understand the social, environmental… feasibility of adding nuclear power to the province”. This report (Exposure to Radiation and Health Outcomes) is in response to that recommendation.
Objective of Report
The main objective of this report was to provide an evidence-based epidemiological review on the impact of exposure to radiation on subsequent health outcomes. Articles were accepted for inclusion only if they were of high scientific quality with information coming from peer review publications or credible sources like the World Health Organization or the United Nations.
About the Author
Mark Lemstra has a Bachelor of Science, a Master of Science in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, a Master of Science in Public Health, a Master of Science in Epidemiology, a Doctor of Science in Public Health, a Doctor of Science in Epidemiology, a PhD in Psychiatry and a PhD in Epidemiology.
Conflicts of Interest
There are no direct or indirect conflicts of interest to declare. This report is an independent review of the association between exposure to radiation and subsequent health outcomes. At no time was the author asked to lead the discussion of this report in one direction or another. This report is not for profit without copyright and to be used for educational or information services alone.
The hope is that this independent summary of the evidence provides some understanding of the social and environmental feasibility of adding nuclear power to the province of Saskatchewan.
FULL REPORT:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/~ASSETS/DOCUMENT/
Saskatchewan_Pubs/2009/Radiation_and_health.pdf
Mark Lemstra BSc, MSc, MSc, MPH, DrSc, DrPH, PhD, PhD
Commission
This report was commissioned by the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives (Saskatchewan office) and the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses. Verbal agreement to proceed was granted on May 28, 2009 for a report to be completed by June 18, 2009. The report is to be presented to the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan Public Consultation Process on June 23, 2009.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/~ASSETS/DOCUMENT/
Saskatchewan_Pubs/2009/Radiation_and_health.pdf
Context
In October 2008, the Government of Saskatchewan established the Uranium Development Partnership to examine uranium resources. The report Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan was submitted March 31, 2009. On April 8, 2009, the Government of Saskatchewan initiated a public consultation process on the recommendations of the report. One of the recommendations was that “further work needs to be done to understand the social, environmental… feasibility of adding nuclear power to the province”. This report (Exposure to Radiation and Health Outcomes) is in response to that recommendation.
Objective of Report
The main objective of this report was to provide an evidence-based epidemiological review on the impact of exposure to radiation on subsequent health outcomes. Articles were accepted for inclusion only if they were of high scientific quality with information coming from peer review publications or credible sources like the World Health Organization or the United Nations.
About the Author
Mark Lemstra has a Bachelor of Science, a Master of Science in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, a Master of Science in Public Health, a Master of Science in Epidemiology, a Doctor of Science in Public Health, a Doctor of Science in Epidemiology, a PhD in Psychiatry and a PhD in Epidemiology.
Conflicts of Interest
There are no direct or indirect conflicts of interest to declare. This report is an independent review of the association between exposure to radiation and subsequent health outcomes. At no time was the author asked to lead the discussion of this report in one direction or another. This report is not for profit without copyright and to be used for educational or information services alone.
The hope is that this independent summary of the evidence provides some understanding of the social and environmental feasibility of adding nuclear power to the province of Saskatchewan.
FULL REPORT:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/~ASSETS/DOCUMENT/
Saskatchewan_Pubs/2009/Radiation_and_health.pdf
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
UDP - The Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan By Jake Buhler
by Oscar » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:08 pm
The Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan By Jake Buhler
representing many of the former members of the Warman and District Concerned Citizens Group) June 23, 2009 Regina, SK
Presentation to Mr. Dan Perrins, Chair - Public Consultation Process
A. Introduction:
The Warman and District Concerned Citizens Group (WDCCG) was formed in 1976 in response to Eldorado Nuclear’s plan to build a Uranium Hexafluoride Refinery east-south-east of Warman. The NDP Government of the time wished to add value to the mining and milling of uranium in Saskatchewan by refining milled yellowcake into fuel for nuclear reactors.
The WDCCG followed the events through to their conclusion in 1981 when Eldorado announced it was withdrawing its bid to build a refinery. The 5 year struggle was a tough one. Over the 5 years, 500 persons joined the WDCCG. Our group took a position that a refinery should not be built at Warman. We worked co-operatively with several ministries within Government, with Eldorado, and finally with the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO). As a major stakeholder, WDCCG, intervened at the hearings held at Martensville in the fall of 1980. The 9 member panel heard from many members of the group. We had asked the FEARO office for permission to have our own representative represented on the panel but were refused. However, we received permission to nominate an advisor to the panel. This advisor from Winnipeg met twice with the entire panel over many hours.
The main arguments made by people opposed to the refinery project were:
1. Agriculture (the area is in the middle of the largest dairy shed in the province) and nuclear development are not compatible.
2. The intrusion of a large nuclear facility would forever change the physical and sociological landscape of the region from farming to industrial.
3. The link between a uranium hexafluoride refinery and the development of nuclear weapons. Local people holding a faith perspective on militarism, oppose such development.
4. The risk of spills and radiation accidents.
5. Energy sources already exist in hydro, wind, solar, clean coal, and geothermal. Nuclear energy is not necessary.
There was public confusion as to why Eldorado withdrew from Warman. The facts are that the panel had concluded that the location of the refinery near a railway, near the South Sask River, and near a highway - was fine. They concluded that agriculture would not be adversely affected. But they also concluded that while wildlife, cattle, birds and trees had been studied, the people of the area had not been studied. To proceed further, the panel concluded that this would first have to be done. Eldorado decided not to proceed. If the Warman story has something to say, it is that people, many of them Mennonite, were considered, in 1981, to be a part of the environment.
The WDCCG was a registered group made up of only volunteers. It registered for and received charitable status. It received a grant of $13,000.00 from the provincial government to prepare briefs and to pay for travel costs of several experts who made presentations to the FEARO panel.
The WDCCG disbanded in 1981. This presentation is made with consultation on behalf of many persons who were part of that group that worked to oppose Eldorado’s bid.
So this short brief is being presented under my name, but with the support of a many people who were consulted, who helped prepare this brief, and who share similar views.
B. The Perrins listening Assignment
I, like many, am pleased I can present my views to the Public Consultation Process on the proposal to build a nuclear reactor(s) somewhere in Saskatchewan. It is my understanding that the Government of Saskatchewan will receive advice from Mr. Perrins. It will also study advice from the highly pro-nuclear Uranium Development Committee headed by Dr. Richard Florizone. I believe my views and those of hundreds of others will be properly recognized. I am also aware that the Saskatchewan Party, Bruce Power, and the UDP, will be able to use the ready-made information from the Public Consultation Process and develop a rationale addressing all the main arguments that people have raised. If the Wall Government wishes to proceed with a reactor, they will. To proceed will be much easier if they know how to deal with the issues raised by the people. It is a negative thought, but nevertheless quite legitimate. Bruce Power, who will do the public relations work, will benefit most. To have thousands of pages of opinions and formal presentations is a dream come true. However there is also a chance that the Perrins report may include recommendations that the Government may listen to. I envision a key recommendation will suggest that the people of the province have said that the Province of Saskatchewan needs an energy policy, not only a nuclear policy. Further, the Energy Policy requires 10 years of Research and Development. I have hope that the Wall Government will sensibly go the way of wisdom and develop an energy policy, and fund it generously.
C. Our reaction to the proposal to build a nuclear reactor
1. Mr. Perrins, excuse me, while I speak directly to Premier Wall.
Mr. Wall, both you and I belong to the Mennonite Church. You conveniently use that connection when it is convenient, and you even say a few things in the oral language called Plautdietsch. I wish to say to you now: “Wan eene sikj en Hues buen well, dann mot ene eascht ut finjen, woo fael daut kosten woat. Soo sajt de Schreft.” (trans: When one sets out to build a house, one must first know the cost of building it. This is also stated in the Scriptures) Mr. Wall, neither you nor I have a clue of the cost of commissioning a nuclear reactor, and less an idea of how much it will cost to decommission it, in say, 2060). Both you and I agree on one thing: as taxpayers, you and I will pay for much of the nuclear option. Daut weet wie gonz jeneiw. (trans: that much we know for certain)
2. Mr. Wall, the connection between spent uranium fuel and atomic weapons are direct. Our uranium was first used by India to develop its nuclear weaponry capabilities in 1974. Once we sell our uranium fuel, or spent fuel, we cannot control where it will go or what it will be used for. I ask you to go back to your Mennonite roots and practice the peace position. Your ancestors died for refusing to bear arms. I realize the nuclear option is quite different. However, the connection between Saskatchewan uranium and the production of atomic weapons can be made, no matter what safeguards there may be.
3. Back to you Mr. Perrins: Saskatchewan needs an energy policy, not a nuclear policy. Using Manitoba Hydro as a base source, we can use wind, geothermal and solar, among some options. Others have described this in length. I do not even wish to begin. By now you are tired of hearing how much wind and solar potential Saskatchewan has. I will not be-labor this point.
D. Level Ground Trading for All
The Mennonites started an organization called Ten Thousand Villages. It is a place where you can buy fairly traded products. The organization that supplies coffee for Ten thousand Villages from a dozen countries is called Level Ground Trading. It ensures that the buyer and the producer are both treated well. When the Warman group was pitted against Eldorado, it was like David facing Goliath. In the end we know what happened, but we were outnumbered. The ground was not level and we worked hard to level it so that all could be heard.
Here are some things that I think are necessary if civil society is to prevail in the nuclear debate, and if there is to be a level ground for all:
1. We ask that city officials, university officials, government officials and others who receive free trips by Bruce Power, indicate so when they engage in a nuclear debate. During the Warman refinery time, Eldorado flew all Warman councilors, and all RM of Corman Park councilors to Port Hope to look at the Refinery there. They also flew journalists and City of Saskatoon officials, and, the Chamber of Commerce, and others, there as well. This was to influence them to support Eldorado.
2. We ask that the Government of Saskatchewan engage in an intentional civil society exercise in which environmental groups, energy groups, religious groups, ethnic groups and more, receive funds from the Government of Saskatchewan to do research on energy sources. Should the Government proceed to ask Bruce Power to present a proposal to build a reactor, we believe these non governmental groups should receive funds to prepare briefs. The Warman and District Concerned Citizens Group received funds to prepare briefs for submission to FEARO. Furthermore the Warman group applied for and received charitable status in the Province of Saskatchewan. We ask that a similar recommendation be made by you, Mr. Perrins.
3. We ask that a 10 year moratorium be put on the development of the nuclear option. In place of that, we ask that the University of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Research Council, and private groups be given Research and Development monies totaling 15 million dollars in the first year, 20 million by year 5 and 25 million by the 10th year, to develop alternate sources of energy.
4. We ask that the democratic process begun by the Government of Saskatchewan with your appointment to gather the views of the people of this process, continue. But our experience is that the nuclear industry plays hardball. We ask again, that the money spent by Bruce and by the Government of Saskatchewan be offset with goodly grants to civil society and environmental and community groups.
5. Bruce Power, as a proponent of nuclear power is in a difficult position to distinguish between information and promotional propaganda. Premier Wall’s Government is also a proponent of nuclear energy. For citizens seeking a way forward, they must now agree or reject the government’s stance. I am very unhappy with this as it is adversarial approach.
6. We also ask if any Minister of the Government (or his/her representative) has had off-the-record or formal discussions with Bruce or with local people about another reactor site near Saskatoon. If so, we ask for disclosure. We also ask whether any kind of conversations have occurred between a Minister of Government (or his/her representative) and local people about a uranium refinery site near Saskatoon.
Jake Buhler, M.Th. S., M.Ed.(i),B.Ed., B.A.
836 Main Street
Saskatoon, SK S7H 0K3 (306) 244 1392
representing many of the former members of the Warman and District Concerned Citizens Group) June 23, 2009 Regina, SK
Presentation to Mr. Dan Perrins, Chair - Public Consultation Process
A. Introduction:
The Warman and District Concerned Citizens Group (WDCCG) was formed in 1976 in response to Eldorado Nuclear’s plan to build a Uranium Hexafluoride Refinery east-south-east of Warman. The NDP Government of the time wished to add value to the mining and milling of uranium in Saskatchewan by refining milled yellowcake into fuel for nuclear reactors.
The WDCCG followed the events through to their conclusion in 1981 when Eldorado announced it was withdrawing its bid to build a refinery. The 5 year struggle was a tough one. Over the 5 years, 500 persons joined the WDCCG. Our group took a position that a refinery should not be built at Warman. We worked co-operatively with several ministries within Government, with Eldorado, and finally with the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO). As a major stakeholder, WDCCG, intervened at the hearings held at Martensville in the fall of 1980. The 9 member panel heard from many members of the group. We had asked the FEARO office for permission to have our own representative represented on the panel but were refused. However, we received permission to nominate an advisor to the panel. This advisor from Winnipeg met twice with the entire panel over many hours.
The main arguments made by people opposed to the refinery project were:
1. Agriculture (the area is in the middle of the largest dairy shed in the province) and nuclear development are not compatible.
2. The intrusion of a large nuclear facility would forever change the physical and sociological landscape of the region from farming to industrial.
3. The link between a uranium hexafluoride refinery and the development of nuclear weapons. Local people holding a faith perspective on militarism, oppose such development.
4. The risk of spills and radiation accidents.
5. Energy sources already exist in hydro, wind, solar, clean coal, and geothermal. Nuclear energy is not necessary.
There was public confusion as to why Eldorado withdrew from Warman. The facts are that the panel had concluded that the location of the refinery near a railway, near the South Sask River, and near a highway - was fine. They concluded that agriculture would not be adversely affected. But they also concluded that while wildlife, cattle, birds and trees had been studied, the people of the area had not been studied. To proceed further, the panel concluded that this would first have to be done. Eldorado decided not to proceed. If the Warman story has something to say, it is that people, many of them Mennonite, were considered, in 1981, to be a part of the environment.
The WDCCG was a registered group made up of only volunteers. It registered for and received charitable status. It received a grant of $13,000.00 from the provincial government to prepare briefs and to pay for travel costs of several experts who made presentations to the FEARO panel.
The WDCCG disbanded in 1981. This presentation is made with consultation on behalf of many persons who were part of that group that worked to oppose Eldorado’s bid.
So this short brief is being presented under my name, but with the support of a many people who were consulted, who helped prepare this brief, and who share similar views.
B. The Perrins listening Assignment
I, like many, am pleased I can present my views to the Public Consultation Process on the proposal to build a nuclear reactor(s) somewhere in Saskatchewan. It is my understanding that the Government of Saskatchewan will receive advice from Mr. Perrins. It will also study advice from the highly pro-nuclear Uranium Development Committee headed by Dr. Richard Florizone. I believe my views and those of hundreds of others will be properly recognized. I am also aware that the Saskatchewan Party, Bruce Power, and the UDP, will be able to use the ready-made information from the Public Consultation Process and develop a rationale addressing all the main arguments that people have raised. If the Wall Government wishes to proceed with a reactor, they will. To proceed will be much easier if they know how to deal with the issues raised by the people. It is a negative thought, but nevertheless quite legitimate. Bruce Power, who will do the public relations work, will benefit most. To have thousands of pages of opinions and formal presentations is a dream come true. However there is also a chance that the Perrins report may include recommendations that the Government may listen to. I envision a key recommendation will suggest that the people of the province have said that the Province of Saskatchewan needs an energy policy, not only a nuclear policy. Further, the Energy Policy requires 10 years of Research and Development. I have hope that the Wall Government will sensibly go the way of wisdom and develop an energy policy, and fund it generously.
C. Our reaction to the proposal to build a nuclear reactor
1. Mr. Perrins, excuse me, while I speak directly to Premier Wall.
Mr. Wall, both you and I belong to the Mennonite Church. You conveniently use that connection when it is convenient, and you even say a few things in the oral language called Plautdietsch. I wish to say to you now: “Wan eene sikj en Hues buen well, dann mot ene eascht ut finjen, woo fael daut kosten woat. Soo sajt de Schreft.” (trans: When one sets out to build a house, one must first know the cost of building it. This is also stated in the Scriptures) Mr. Wall, neither you nor I have a clue of the cost of commissioning a nuclear reactor, and less an idea of how much it will cost to decommission it, in say, 2060). Both you and I agree on one thing: as taxpayers, you and I will pay for much of the nuclear option. Daut weet wie gonz jeneiw. (trans: that much we know for certain)
2. Mr. Wall, the connection between spent uranium fuel and atomic weapons are direct. Our uranium was first used by India to develop its nuclear weaponry capabilities in 1974. Once we sell our uranium fuel, or spent fuel, we cannot control where it will go or what it will be used for. I ask you to go back to your Mennonite roots and practice the peace position. Your ancestors died for refusing to bear arms. I realize the nuclear option is quite different. However, the connection between Saskatchewan uranium and the production of atomic weapons can be made, no matter what safeguards there may be.
3. Back to you Mr. Perrins: Saskatchewan needs an energy policy, not a nuclear policy. Using Manitoba Hydro as a base source, we can use wind, geothermal and solar, among some options. Others have described this in length. I do not even wish to begin. By now you are tired of hearing how much wind and solar potential Saskatchewan has. I will not be-labor this point.
D. Level Ground Trading for All
The Mennonites started an organization called Ten Thousand Villages. It is a place where you can buy fairly traded products. The organization that supplies coffee for Ten thousand Villages from a dozen countries is called Level Ground Trading. It ensures that the buyer and the producer are both treated well. When the Warman group was pitted against Eldorado, it was like David facing Goliath. In the end we know what happened, but we were outnumbered. The ground was not level and we worked hard to level it so that all could be heard.
Here are some things that I think are necessary if civil society is to prevail in the nuclear debate, and if there is to be a level ground for all:
1. We ask that city officials, university officials, government officials and others who receive free trips by Bruce Power, indicate so when they engage in a nuclear debate. During the Warman refinery time, Eldorado flew all Warman councilors, and all RM of Corman Park councilors to Port Hope to look at the Refinery there. They also flew journalists and City of Saskatoon officials, and, the Chamber of Commerce, and others, there as well. This was to influence them to support Eldorado.
2. We ask that the Government of Saskatchewan engage in an intentional civil society exercise in which environmental groups, energy groups, religious groups, ethnic groups and more, receive funds from the Government of Saskatchewan to do research on energy sources. Should the Government proceed to ask Bruce Power to present a proposal to build a reactor, we believe these non governmental groups should receive funds to prepare briefs. The Warman and District Concerned Citizens Group received funds to prepare briefs for submission to FEARO. Furthermore the Warman group applied for and received charitable status in the Province of Saskatchewan. We ask that a similar recommendation be made by you, Mr. Perrins.
3. We ask that a 10 year moratorium be put on the development of the nuclear option. In place of that, we ask that the University of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Research Council, and private groups be given Research and Development monies totaling 15 million dollars in the first year, 20 million by year 5 and 25 million by the 10th year, to develop alternate sources of energy.
4. We ask that the democratic process begun by the Government of Saskatchewan with your appointment to gather the views of the people of this process, continue. But our experience is that the nuclear industry plays hardball. We ask again, that the money spent by Bruce and by the Government of Saskatchewan be offset with goodly grants to civil society and environmental and community groups.
5. Bruce Power, as a proponent of nuclear power is in a difficult position to distinguish between information and promotional propaganda. Premier Wall’s Government is also a proponent of nuclear energy. For citizens seeking a way forward, they must now agree or reject the government’s stance. I am very unhappy with this as it is adversarial approach.
6. We also ask if any Minister of the Government (or his/her representative) has had off-the-record or formal discussions with Bruce or with local people about another reactor site near Saskatoon. If so, we ask for disclosure. We also ask whether any kind of conversations have occurred between a Minister of Government (or his/her representative) and local people about a uranium refinery site near Saskatoon.
Jake Buhler, M.Th. S., M.Ed.(i),B.Ed., B.A.
836 Main Street
Saskatoon, SK S7H 0K3 (306) 244 1392
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
18 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Uranium/Nuclear/Waste
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests