ADAMSON: A RESPONSE TO THE UDP REPORT

[Oscar]

A RESPONSE TO THE UDP REPORT - RISKS FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY
FROM URANIUM DEVELOPMENT

UDP Risks for Health & Safety from Uranium Development Dr. Bill Adamson, June 23, 2009

A. Miners and Mill Workers.

The carcinogenic risk of exposure to radon and alpha radiation has been known and studied for decades.
It began with the Czechoslovakian miners of feldspar in 1948, then became apparent with uranium miners in Germany, and then in France. (1)
In 1910 Marie and Pierre Curie had discovered the radioactive qualities of radium and polonium in pitchblende. Later in Canada the mining authorities knew of the dangers, but did not tell their workers. In Port Radium, NWT, Satu-Dene workers carried sacks of uranium ore on their backs, unprotected, as they loaded barges for transport. The National Film Board of Canada (NFB) film, "Village of Widows," reveals that over half of the workers died with lung cancer.
From 1930 to 1982 some 17,660 miners and millworkers laboured for Eldorado Nuclear in the region of Uranium City and Beaverlodge in northern Saskatchewan. Before the Mine Safety Act of 1966 the standards for radiation exposure were very few. The epidemiologist, Dr. Geoffrey Howe, found that those workers had a 30% higher rate of cancer than ordinary citizens. Of the 17,660, some 5,960 had died of lung cancer by 2006. (2)
Next, several epidemiological health studies were done on 21,346 uranium miners at Elliott Lake and Bancroft, Ontario from 1932 until 1967. The studies found that the miners were 3 times more at risk for cancer than the average citizen. (3)
The mantra of the Uranium Industry was that "low radiation doses mean low risk." However, the flagship of the industry, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., had always claimed its workers were carefully monitored and kept at low radiation exposures. But Johns Hopkins University studied 13,570 employees of AECL for 31years, and found that 948, or 9.8% of the employees, had died of cancer.
Oops! Would not that raise a question in your mind? (4) A study by Finkelstein and Kusiak found that low doses of radiation caused more cases of lung cancer than strong doses! More questions! (5)
Fortunately, the Uranium Industry did continue working to keep radiation doses low for its workers. It installed leaded shields at key points, enhanced ventilation of mine spaces, kept elaborate radiation monitors in place, used more robotic methods of mining ore, and transported ore in the form of a slurry through steel pipes to special trucks. These were helpful measures. The mills, however, are still dangerous since the ore is ground into fine particles thus releasing all the alpha particles and radon in it. Nevertheless, continuous research keeps raising disconcerting problems. The Petkau Response showed that radiation did not work as a linear phenomenon, but as a "supralinear" function. Dr. Abraham Petkau, working at the Whiteshell Research Station at Pinawa, Manitoba in 1972, found that cellular responses to radiation rise sharply from zero dose, but then flatten out at a higher dose. The industry mantra involved a "linear theory," where "low dose means low risk." Sounds reasonable does it not?
But scientists are finding a different phenomena, where low doses also cause harm, but increasing doses do less harm in a "supra-linear" theory, which is practically the opposite of the mantra! It seems high doses of radiation kill cells, which the body tries to replace. Low doses trigger damage to cells and chromosomes, but they moulder and linger, until a few years later they develop into cancerous lesions. The Uranium Corporations do not tell their workers about this "reverse" theory, where the low doses are also very dangerous! (6)
In 1997 Saskatchewan Uranium Miners Cohort (SUMC) was set up to study the health and mortality rates of 12,000 workers from 6 different recent mines in northern Saskatchewan. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) asked the epidemiologist a trick question. Could he find evidence that radiation could cause 5 or 10 times greater risk than current risk models were showing? He did not think that "statistical studies" could clarify or conclude such a finding. The CNSC, on this pretext, cancelled the Study, although loads of data are available for epidemiological research. The Industry was ecstatic, and the Press went berserk, printing headlines like "Radiation is Safe." This event was a travesty! (7) In 2005, a sub-committee of the National Academy of Science, the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Commission (BEIR VII), a group of top scientists, stated that the scientific research base shows there is no low threshold of radiation exposure which is safe. (8)
The International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) sets what are deemed as "permissible doses" for uranium workers. The only problem is that it has set them too high, and the workers are exposed to more dangerous radiation risk than they realize. The CNSC, the Industry, the Provincial Government, and the Federal Government all follow and depend upon these ICRP guidelines.
The European Commission on Radiation risk (ECRR) contest the guidelines of the ICRP. The ECRR is composed of 46 scientists from several disciplines who issued a major report in 2003. They contend the methodology of the ICRP is outmoded and defective because it was originated even before DNA was discovered. Its focus, based mainly on physics, is too narrow, neglecting other disciplines like radiology, epidemiology, genetics, and health specialties. The original scientists of the ICRP were physicists, who
used statistics regarding gamma radiation from follow up studies of the effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions.
The ICRP system "averages" the radiation effects over the whole body mass. Its risk estimates are based on external and not enough on internal radiation. It does not fully account for the vagaries of alpha radiation, where high charged particles fly off spontaneously and randomly from the source. As the ECRR claims, if an alpha molecule floats down the windpipe of a miner, and hits a cell in the lung, the damage is done! It is not a matter of "averaging" the impact over the whole body. The ECRR also indicated that low doses increased the level of genetic mutation in cells which are hit. The ICRP has set the allowable limit of radiation at 20 millisieverts, averaged over 5 years, and a maximum dose of 9.4 mSv per year, with 1.0 mSv for the general public. The ECRR recommends 0.1 mSv, and 5.0 mSv for nuclear workers. (9)
The main reason the Uranium Industry survives today is that the "delayed action" of radiation damage takes 15-20 years to develop into cancer. By that time, many of the owners have closed up shop and moved away, and a percentage of the workers are left with a cancer in their lungs!

B. Children, Mothers, Fathers and the Effects of Radiation
In 1957 Dr. Alice Stewart demonstrated that there was an increase of cancer in babies where the mother had received abdominal X-rays during pregnancy. She later established that even a single diagnostic Xray was enough to double the risk of early cancer. By the 1970’s medical bodies recommended that pregnant women should not be X-rayed. (10)
It was found that children, with rapidly replicating cells, are more sensitive to radiation damage. (11)
Apparently, radium is attracted to bone. Hence, in the United Kingdom, it was found that strontium, a cancer producing chemical, was discovered in larger quantities in the teeth of children living near to nuclear reactors. (12)
Strontium-90 is a man-made form of radiation, and so comes from nuclear reactors and from nuclear bomb testing, which scatters radiation in the air currents. The strontium-90 damages the bone marrow’s ability to fight cancer and infectious diseases, hence resulting in a greater number of leukemia cases in children. Many studies were done in the United Kingdom, which spurred other countries also to research strontium-90 in children’s teeth near nuclear reactors. (See the articles listed by Google) The USA did some of its own research studies and found that counties within 40 miles of 6 nuclear power plants, had higher levels of strontium-90 ---sometimes 31% to 54% more than other counties.
This, in turn, led to higher incidences of child leukemia. (13) In Port Hope, Ontario, where 35 million cubic metres of radioactive soil and waste has been dispersed from around the Cameco Conversion Facility, the children have experienced elevated cases of disease. "The people of Port Hope are still waiting for the health studies commitment to be honoured. Independent statistical analysis of two preliminary federal studies released several years ago has shown elevated rates in Port Hope of incidence and mortality from such diseases as lung cancer, brain cancer, colon cancer, lip, nose and pharyngeal cancer, non-Hodgkinsons lymphoma, and circulating disease." (14)
It was also found that the water in Port Hope had arsenic levels 11 times the acceptable rate for Ontario, and a contamination of the water with uranium 50 times higher than the Provincial Water Quality Objectives.
In his 1982 book, Killing Our Own, Harvey Wasserman documents stories of the diseases and illnesses among children, adults, and farm animals exposed to radiation downwind from the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor after its partial meltdown. (15)
Recently, a 38 page study, concerning the health implications of the nuclear industry has been released by two Physicians writing for the Environmental Health Committee, the Ontario College of Family Physicians. After a lengthy review they conclude: ". . . there are major health effects at every stage of the nuclear fuel chain . . . 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." (16) They review the studies of increased leukemia in proximity to nuclear reactors, beginning with COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment) begun in 1985 by the U.K. government, with 11 subsequent studies concerning the region of the famous Sellafield Reactor.
The authors also review the KiKK study in northern Germany, very carefully executed over 23 years (1980—2003), and also peer reviewed. Those scientists found increased leukemia in children "statistically significant in the 0-5 and 5-10 km zones,and continued as a trend out to 50 km from the nearest nuclear power plant." (17)
It has long been known that ionizing radiation can damage DNA germ cells—both eggs and sperm, and thus passed on to future generations leading to possible mutations, malformations, and genetic disease. Surprisingly, the Ontario physicians made reference to two studies which examined the radiation exposure of fathers, especially miners, before the conception of their children suffering from leukemia, Down’s syndrome, and congenital anomalies. One study had been done in 1990 by Gardner et al, and a second one in Ontario in 1997 by Green et al. (18)
In 2005. Dr. Helen Caldicott of Australia stated: "It takes a single mutation in a single cell to kill you. [The most common plutonium isotope] has a half-life of 24,400 years. Every male in the Northern Hemisphere has a small load of plutonium in his gonads. What this means to future generations God only knows—and we’re not the only species with testicles. What we are doing is degrading evolution, and not many people understand that." (19)

Summary
The Report of the Uranium Development Partnership gives very little attention to the health and safety risks of uranium mining, and nuclear reactors. It states: "A strong and effective licensing and environmental assessment process is paramount to ensure the safety of workers and the public, as well as to protect the public." This is repeated at least 3 times. (pp. 4,27,37) It is a bland hope with no specifics to support it.
Again, the Report states: "Public exposure levels from nuclear power are significantly below naturally occurring levels and come with no known health risks." (p.95) In another place it states: "Exposure to ionizing radiation is a risk facing nuclear power workers; . . . numerous studies have shown that radiation exposure for workers in nuclear power is near naturally occurring levels and presents no health risks."
(p. 96) Such statements are in direct contradiction to many other scientific studies, and a huge volume of radiation and genetic studies.
This Report cares nothing for the health and safety of workers, women, and children. It flies in the face of hundreds of other documents. It is chiefly a "business plan on steroids," focused on business and profits. It is incomplete, unbalanced, and unscientific.
It needs to be categorically rejected!

Dr. Bill Adamson,
Saskatoon, SK
May 27, 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
END NOTES RESOURCES
(1) Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 1994: 51; 308—315
Some 4320 miners in west bohemia were followed up from 1948 to 1990.
Journal of Radiological Protection, 2002,Czech Cohort Study of 23,043 miners resulting in 2,949 cancer cases. Article by Tomsack.
British Journal of Cancer, 2008, Nature.com Publishing Group.( A study of 58.987 German Miners) British Journal of Cancer, Radiation Research, 1994
British Journal of Cancer, 2005 Nov. 6:95 (9) 1280—7. "Lung Cancer risk among German male uranium miners, a cohort study, 1946—1998." An overall workforce of 100,000 individuals.. a cohort of 59,001 studied—during the study period 16,598 died.
Journal of Radiological Protection 22 A101-A106, "Lung Cancer Risk in the French Cohort of Uranium Miners," by A. Rogel, D. Laurier, M. Timarche, B. Quesne—a cohort of 5098 miners.
Radiation Environmental Biophysics, 2009 Feb:48(1) 1--9, "Radon associated lung cancer risk among French uranium miners: modifying factors of the exposure-risk relationship," by Vacquier, Rogel, Leuraud, Caer, Acker, & Laurier.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2008:65.597—604. "Mortality risk in the French Cohort of uranium miners; extended follow-up 1946--1999. By Vacquier et al—4140 miners exposed to radon, 1411 deaths.
(2) Dr. G. Howe, Columbia University, RSP—0205 Eldorado Nuclear Epidemiology Study Update - Eldorado Uranium Miners’ Cohort: Part 1 of the Sask. Uranium Miners’ Cohort Study.
Dr. Geoffrey R. Howe, "Updated Analysis of the Eldorado Uranium Miners’ Cohort: Part II of the Saskatchewan Uranium Miners’ Cohort Study, March 16, 2006.
(3) British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1993,50: 920—928 Kusiak,Ritchie, Miller, and Springer, "Mortality from lung cancer in Ontario uranium miners."
Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 23, No. 6, June 1981. Alan Chovil, B.Cher, "The Epidemiology of Primary Lung Cancer in Uranium Miners in Ontario."
(4) American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 1364--75. Copyright 1988 by the John Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health.
(5) Ontario Ministry of Labour. Finkelstein, Murray M. and Kusiak, Robert A., "Clinical Measures, Smoking, Radon Exposure and Lung Cancer Among Elliot Lake Uranium Miners." May 1995, p.6,28,21.
Ontario Ministry of Labour, Workers Compensation Board of Ontario, Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada, April 1989, pp.10, 20. Miller, Kusiak, & Ritchie, "Factors Modifying Lung Cancer Risk in Ontario Uranium Miners, 1955--1981.
(6) 2003 Recommendations of the European Commission on Radiation Risk (ECRR): The Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes, ed. By Dr. Chris Busby, Published by Green Audit Press, Aberstwyth, U. K. pp. 78--79, 83.
(7) Backgrounder: Health Studies for Saskatchewan Uranium Miners, June 2005, Radiation Protection and Environmental Compliance Division, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, pp. 1--6.
Saskatoon Star Phoenix, "Federal agency says workers safe from radiation. June 14, 2004, p. A9.
(8) U. S. National Academy of Sciences, BEIR VII Report, June 2005, Chairperson, Dr. Richard R. Monson.
(9) Health Canada, Occupational Exposure to Radiation.
www.hc-sc.ca/h1-vs/1yh-vsv/environ/expose-eng.php
Op. cit: ECRR, See p. 83.
(10) International Institute of Concern for Public Health, from the New York Times, June 27, 2002. "Dr. Alice Stewart Obituary."
Right Livelihood Award Foundation, Sweden, "Right Livelihood Award. (U. K.) 1986 –Alice Stewart.
(11) Op. cit. ECRR, p. 84. reference to the research of Burgonie and Tribondeace of 1906.
(12) BBC NEWS—Newsnight 27/11/01—"Man made radiation in teeth of children."
(13) WISE/NIRS—Nuclear Monitor, May 16, 2003, "U.S. Strontium-90 in baby teeth near Florida reactors."
USA TODAY, 1/1/ 2004. "Baby teeth offer radioactive clues." by Gary Stoller.
International Journal of Health Services, Vol. 36, No. 1/2006, pp. 113—135.
(14) Families Against Radiation Exposure (FARE), P.O. Box 202.Port Hope. Press Release, Aug. 14, 2008, "F.A.R.E. praises Lakeshore residents for alerting us about uranium in Lake Ontario."
Global Research, ca—"Alpha Particle" uranium contamination in Port Hope, Ontario, by Edward (Tedd) C. Weyman, Nov. 1, 2008.
"Great Lakes Health Effects Program: Port Hope Harbour area of concern: Health data and statistics for the population of the Region. (1986--1992).
"Unresolved Concerns of the People of Port Hope," Prepared by families against Radiation Exposure and Port Hope Community Health concerns Committee at the request of Paul Mackin, M.P., p. 8.
(15) Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America’s Experience with Atomic Radiation, by Wasserman, Solomon, Alvarez, and Walters, A Delta Book, 1982.
(16) "Human Health Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation," prepared for the Environmental Health Committee, Ontario College of Physicians, by Dr. Cathy Vakil, M.D., C.C.F.P., F.C.F.P, and Dr. Linda Harvey, B.Sc., M.Sc., M.D., March 2009, p. 39.
(17) Ibid., p. 31
(18) British Medical Journal, 1990;300:423--9. "Results of a Case-Control Study of Leukemia and Lymphoma Among Young People Near Sellafield Nuclear Plant in West Cumbria, by Gardner, M., Snee,M., Hall,A., Powell,C., Downes, S., and Terrell.J.
"Occupational Exposure of fathers to Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Leukemia in Offspring—a Case-Control Study, 1992 (AECB Project No. 7. 157.1) by McLaughlin J., Anderson T., Clarke E., King, W.
(19) Grist News: Environmental News and Commentary, "No Nukes is Good Nukes," an interview with long time anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott, by Gregory Dicum, 03, May 2005.
www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/05/03/dicum-caldicott

[Oscar]

RESPONSE TO THE UDP REPORT - SASKATOON PUBLIC CONSULTATION NUCLEAR WASTE

UDP Response - Public Hearing - Nuclear Waste Dr. Bill Adamson, June 15, 2009

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 halflife, 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 can’t 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.
June 15, 2009

[Oscar]

A RESPONSE TO THE UDP REPORT - HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE

UDP Nuclear Waste Dr. Bill Adamson, May 27, 2009

It all began with the Manhattan Project in 1945. Scientists learned how to trigger nuclear fission, and 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 meter."
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 were enormous. Canada developed a debt of $78 billion, with $28 billion in "stranded debt", for which 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 totaling $18 billion dollars. These reactors have never proven economical or self-sustaining, always needing federal subsidies to survive. The 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, remaining 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, and have not developed a satisfactory disposal system The USA has spent $13.6 billion dollars over 20 years to develop a special shaft to house waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Because of geological faults, earthquakes, water migration in rocks, and protests from 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 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 unacceptable.
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 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. Schumacher 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
(1) The Safety of Ontario’s Nuclear Reactors
(2) The Management of Nuclear Fuel Waste
(3) 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.