There has been a very considerable amount of media coverage related to the review of Ontario’s nuclear emergency plans currently underway (...)Read More
Ontario’s nuclear emergency plan is called the PNERP. Provincial Nuclear Emergency Response Plan. It is supposed to be reviewed & revised every four years. Its review was four years behind schedule when finally released last week.
(The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster – a disaster that is very much ongoing – began 6 years ago now, just as a reminder. March 11, 2011.)
Quick note: a tsunami is not required for a nuclear disaster to occur! (Feel free to take a look at these two lists of nuclear disasters over the decades (long list; short list). Not only is a tsunami not required, the Japanese accident is the only one of this long list that did involve a tsunami. Consult the Quotations section on this site to read a list of quotes about how/why this disaster did take place. Hint: It wasn’t about the tsunami & earthquake.)
Nuclear Emergency Plan Now Out for Review
So, the Province (specifically, the Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services & its Office of the Fire Marshal & Emergency Management, or OFMEM) has released a revised PNERP for review.
The public has until July 14th to offer comments. **** (Note: the comment period has been extended to July 28th, at midnight.)
Find the news release about it here.
& the EBR (Environmental Bill of Rights) posting here.
NGO Lessons Learned
The kind of emergency plan the Province creates, we now know, depends upon the kind of emergency for which it chooses to prepare.
So … if they prepare for a minor accident, they only make plans for a rather low-key response.
If the assumption is made that only a “small” release of radionuclides (i.e., radioactivity) will occur, then you don’t go into the detailed planning for evacuation centres, decontamination sites, what to do with children in schools and daycare centres (how to reunite families, that is to say) … or seniors in retirement and nursing homes … or the kind of widespread evacuation that would be required in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area), for example, if a Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi-style accident (& major radioactivity release) were to take place at one of the 10 operating nuclear reactors at Pickering or Darlington (6 operating reactors at Pickering, 4 at Darlington).
It might be a bit like, as a parent, planning to take a First Aid course so you’ll be prepared to deal with emergencies that come up with your children. Off you go to class, where you learn that the instructors have decided to assume your child will only ever encounter a very minor accident. They teach you how to put a band-aid on a very small “boo boo” – & send you home, un-prepared to deal with the more serious emergencies you are all too likely to encounter along the way.
An Accident Can’t Happen Here?
Well, we covered that. Nuclear accidents can occur anywhere. Major ones are occurring at the rate of about 1 every 10 years.
So … it does seem prudent to be prepared for whatever level of accident could potentially occur, wouldn’t you say?
Btw, 86% Surveyed Want Plans for Serious Accident
In the lead-up to the 2015 Darlington relicensing hearing, DNA commissioned a survey of residents living near that plant (on Highway 401, just west of the town of Bowmanville, in the municipality of Clarington).
86% of those surveyed said they want to see detailed emergency plans for a serious, Fukushima Daiichi-level disaster.
Learn More About Nuclear Emergency Plan Review
CELA, Greenpeace and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario held a joint media conference last week, a few days after the Province announced the release of the review.
- News release here.
- Full news conference here
- CELA report card gives the plan a ‘D’ grade.
- RNAO (i.e., nurses’) portion of news conference here.
- Greenpeace Q & A on nuclear emergency plans
- A Call for Public Safety: Addressing Nuclear Risks on the Great Lakes
And, presented at the news conference last week, A Call for Public Safety endorsed by 40 public interest groups, “calling on the Wynne government to fill gaps and fix flaws in Ontario’s nuclear emergency plans that leave people vulnerable in the event of a nuclear accident on the Great Lakes” (from the news release).
For the record…
Several recent incidents have highlighted the need to be prepared for emergencies (of any kind) ahead of time.
A few months ago there was a major snowstorm in Quebec in which some motorists were stranded in their cars for as long as 12 hours. In the political aftermath of this storm, a deputy-minister was fired and a police staffer put on administrative leave. According to the news article, “’The premier had acknowledged on Wednesday that the province "lacked co-ordination" in its response.’” In other words, the left hand was not too sure what the right hand was doing.
More recently, & closer to home, there was flooding in the town of Bowmanville that led to some confusion and criticism flying among politicians there. (See article Orono May10.)
Lack of preparation & coordination for emergency situations – ahead of time. Too many “fingers in the pie.” Things “falling between the cracks.”
Inadequate response to emergencies seems to be entirely too common.
Well. We know the nuclear industry is fully aware that a serious accident could occur at one of Ontario’s nuclear plants. An industry staff person explained to those attending the Durham Nuclear Health Committee meeting in January 2017 that on-site emergency drills are held at the nuke plants 5 times per year.
It seems almost as though the industry is keen to have its own staff prepared for a serious nuclear emergency – but that the “powers that be” are rather more cavalier about preparations for what occurs “off-site.” To you & me, I mean. The “general public.”
Emergency “exercises” take place – but the public is not involved in these, & continues to be quite ill-informed about what to expect if a nuclear disaster hits. (Several media items attest to this at the time of the big Darlington emergency “exercise” held in Spring 2014, for example this one from the Pickering paper “Pickering, Clarington residents not sure what to do in nuclear emergency.”)
** Note: a good quick assessment of the true usefulness of massive nuclear emergency "exercises" can be found in this item: Emergency exercises-UCS
Boxer Mike Tyson once observed, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.” A serious nuclear accident is one heck of a punch in the face.
Ontarians need to be sure to pay attention to this nuclear emergency plan review.
Make use of the resources provided here, and weigh in. Speak up!
Deadline = July 28th, so you have time to study up on it all.
** more to come...
That’s when it began … but the disaster continues to roll out, day by day, month by month – year after year … and now, decade after decade.
Since genetic mutations are passed down from generation to generation, this is not an “accident” - a tragedy - that is ever going to stop happening.
Children, in particular, are devastated by the fallout from nuclear disasters. Their genes have been damaged, their food is full of radioactive fallout – & if the country they live in has been devastated economically (this is a given, of course), how can things possibly go “well” for them?? (check out the most recent Nuclear Hotseat podcast to learn about the U.N. cover-up of health impacts from the accident, here.)
As Fairewinds Education’s Arnie Gundersen asked rhetorically in a recent telebriefing about the season of nuclear disasters – Three Mile Island, Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl all occurred in the Spring months – we know when nuclear disasters begin – but …
When do they end?
Well. They don’t. Sadly, they just don’t.
As exiled Belarussian scientist Yury Bandazhevsky sees it, “Chernobyl is not finished, it has only just begun.” ('Ruined Chernobyl nuclear plant will remain a threat for 3,000 years')
Bandazhevsky spent 6 years in jail for telling the truth, & was released only after civil rights groups in Europe took up his case.
As Voltaire said, “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”
Telling the truth once a nuclear disaster has hit your country does not always go well for the truth-tellers. This would likely play out the same way here if we sustained our own, homegrown nuclear meltdown (the same way it has in the cases of both the Chernobyl & Fukushima Daiichi disasters).
Basically, all bets are off once this kind of disaster hits.
As Mike Tyson said “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
A nuclear accident is one helluva punch in the face.
Why Should We Care?
Well, off the top, because we like to consider ourselves “civilized” human beings. (Yes, of course, I know, some or even perhaps many of us are not particularly civilized. A discussion for another day…)
If we are the sort of people who only care about something that affects us directly, we need to care about the accidents like Three Mile Island, Fukushima Daiichi & Chernobyl, because a nuclear accident can happen anywhere. (Plenty of them have! See Links section below for more on that score.)
Tell me: Did you know this? Ontario Power Generation holds on-site emergency drills at its local nuclear plants 5 times per year.
The general public does not benefit in any way from these drills. But it’s kind of a signal that the “powers that be” are 100% aware that a nuclear accident is possible … wouldn’t you say?
Emergency Planning in Ontario
If an accident were to happen here, it would not likely be handled well.
Why? Because our nuclear emergency plans are predicated on there being only a minor accident, and a “small” release of radioactivity.
We are in no way prepared to deal with a major nuclear accident here.
You can read these “old” articles about the nuclear emergency planning scene.
“I still believe (evacuation planning) is one of the most unplanned things,” Keen lamented (she said this in 2009, but the article the quote is in is from March 18, 2011, i.e., 1 week into the Fukushima Daiichi disaster)
Is Toronto Ready for a Radiation Emergency? (January 2016)
I’m sorry to report that they are still every bit as accurate as they were in 2011 & 2016, when the stories were published.
Provincial nuclear emergency plans are now 4 years overdue to be revised, though the (start of the) Fukushima Daiichi accident is now fully 6 years behind us.
What to Do?
Please honour the victims of the Chernobyl disaster by learning about their lives now, 31 years after the accident began (many links below in DNA’s 30th anniversary posting).
If you have a very strong constitution, you can look for images of Chernobyl’s damaged children on the Internet. CAUTION: heartbreak & tears are very likely outcomes. (Note: a photo collection here - remember my words of warning...)
AND. Please check out the Ontario Clean Air Alliance's Close Pickering campaign!
Accidents & Incidents on Nuclear Files.org site (use the Timeline heading along the top to find a particular decade)
Accidents list here, also (a short & rather incomplete one, by way of comparison to the link above)
Arnie Gundersen Telebriefing on TMI, Fukushima Daiichi & Chernobyl, in early April 2017
Chernobyl: 30 years. The ongoing disaster (DNA posting in 2016 with many, many good links)
Genetic damage in Chernobyl (& Fukushima) - 20-minute YouTube featuring evolutionary biologist Dr. Timothy Mousseau
Ontario Clean Air Alliance newsletter (April 21/17, has a section on Chernobyl)
***** UN's Chernobyl Health Coverup Exposed (Nuclear Hotseat podcast)
Four Lessons from 5 Meltdowns ** Video + Audio + Slides
Other relevant postings on the DNA site
Secret health deal (between the IAEA & WHO - dates back to 1959)
3 Quotations to leave you with:
Former PM of Japan: “Before the Fukushima accident, with the belief that no nuclear accident would happen as long as the safety measures were followed properly, I had pushed the policy of utilising nuclear power,” he wrote. “Having faced the real accident as prime minister, and having experienced the situation which came so close to requiring me to order the evacuation of 50 million people, my view is now changed 180 degrees.” – Naoto Kan, Former Prime Minister of Japan (From this article ‘Japan’s former PM tells of Tokyo evacuation risk after Fukushima’)
More from former PM Naoto Kan: “In spite of the various measures taken in order to prevent accidents, it is technically impossible to eliminate accidents, especially if human factors such as terrorism are taken into account. Actually, it is not all that difficult to eliminate nuclear power plant accidents. All we need to do is to eliminate nuclear power plants themselves. And that resolution lies in the hands of the citizens.” – from the article ‘Encountering the Fukushima Daiichi Accident’
“We knew, with certainty - with arrogant certainty - that we were in control of the power we were playing with. This was the day we learned we were wrong.” - Sergiy Parashyn, Chernobyl Engineer (quoted by Arnie Gundersen in May 2016, in 'Shake, Rattle, and Roll: Seismic Report, Part I' (Also quoted in excellent article here )
** Please stay tuned to this Web site (&/or the DNA Facebook page) for any announcements about the release of the draft, revised provincial nuclear emergency plan. Public input will be considered & yours will be needed!
** with various updates provided since that time. Most recent = July 6/18.
U.S. and Canadian nuclear officials are cooperating on a plan to send somewhere between 100 & 150 truckloads of extremely dangerous liquid nuclear waste along 2000 kilometres of roadways in Canada & the U.S. over the next several years. These trucks will take highly radioactive liquid waste from the Chalk River facility northeast of Ottawa, Ontario to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. (Unless the brakes are put on the scheme, at any rate.)
There is a lot more to this proposed project than meets the eye – or that officials are acknowledging.
& I must correct myself. This is not just a proposed project; for all we know, these shipments may already be underway. The officials in question have obtained the necessary permits & approvals to proceed – in spite of the fact that there is a considerable amount of opposition from concerned citizens, activists, & some politicians – on both sides of the border. (See lengthy media items list under 'Resources,' below.)
** Note on June 20/17: indeed, the shipments are underway.
This scheme has been in the planning stages since 2008. Nuclear officials claim it’s necessary to do it in order to meet “non-proliferation” targets – but my colleagues believe it is nothing more than a “make-work project for the people down at Savannah River site in South Carolina.”
You have to ask yourself these questions:
Why are officials playing fast & loose with the real nature of the witch’s brew, as the slide presentation indicates?
Why do they not acknowledge the material can be safely handled in its current location? Indonesia has recently "downblended" its HEU (highly-enriched uranium). (Backgrounder on HRLM). That can be done here as well.
Why would politicians who have been well-briefed on the issue (on both sides of the border) have said they do not want this scheme to proceed without proper scrutiny? (i.e., an Environmental Impact Statement, in order to assess possible risks & viable alternatives.)
& about those casks? They were “approved” for use in the past … but not for liquid materials, for solid nuclear waste. (Even a fan of nuclear energy can see that liquid waste will not behave as solid waste would in the event of an accident or spill.)
Did you know that accidents do happen with fuel waste falling into pools at reactor sites? (Read a Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission memo about this from January 2016 CNSC Memo-Jan'16-incident Nov'15 & Minutes-CNSC January 28, 2016 – the 2nd item also deals with a spill in Saskatchewan in early 2016.)
Doesn’t everyone know that transportation of nuclear waste on public roads is an extremely risky business? So risky that mayors in the U.S. have resolved they want to minimize these risks by seeing nuclear wastes treated as near as possible to their source location. U.S. Mayors 2014 Resolution on Nuke Transport
Finally, once you know that recent events have shown that accidents really DO happen (not even rarely!) – incidents like a burning bridge; a recent tractor trailer accident that resulted in a spill of toxic cargo, necessitating emergency response & later decontamination of the 1st responders, and, a few years back, a burning truck containing nuclear material – an accident that was not even reported to the Canadian nuclear authorities! - you know you have to sit back for a bit & wonder...
Leading to this final question: Can we really trust the nuclear “authorities” when they say shipments are “routine” & “safe?”
Politicians in Niagara Region (Ontario) Have Taken Action
The regional government in the Niagara Region west of Toronto passed a resolution in June 2015 stating:
“That Regional Council EXPRESS opposition, in principle to any shipment of radioactive liquid waste over public roads and bridge, or on any navigable waterways, or by air, recognizing that such waste can be, has been and should solidified so that it is far less accessible to the environment and living things, and,
That Regional Council URGE the governments of Canada and the United States to halt the shipment of high-level radioactive liquid waste from Chalk river Laboratories to the Savannah river, pending the outcome of full public consultations on the advisability and the potential adverse impacts of the proposed shipments, as well as the alternative procedures to achieve the stated objectives for such shipments.”
You can read more about it in the article Regional Government Joins Women’s Council In Calling For Halt To Plans To Ship High-Grade Nuclear Waste Through Niagara To Border Crossings.
On the U.S. side, there is citizen opposition in Michigan, New York State & North Carolina. New York State Congressman Brian Higgins has been speaking out against the liquid shipment scheme for some time now.
What to do? What to do?
If this project has been in the works for darn near 10 years already (it has), & the scene vis-à-vis “downblending” has changed (it has), & knowing that the transportation of nuclear waste carries tremendous risks (we know it does)
& if the plan is so safe that it really ought to be able to proceed…
Why not put on the brakes & initiate a public process that will involve public agencies (including those in charge of emergency response) … & the public … taking a very thorough look at this plan, the necessity of moving ahead with these 100-150 truckloads, and a careful examination of viable alternatives?
Transparency – & public scrutiny – are surely called for here … are they not??
What can be done?
“Transportation is the Achilles’ heel of nuclear security and everyone knows that,” said Bruce Blair, a retired Air Force missile officer, Princeton University researcher and founder of Global Zero, a nonprofit group that seeks elimination of nuclear weapons.
The danger is not a traffic accident — even a fiery crash is not supposed to explode a warhead — but a heist.
“In an age of terrorism, you’re taking a big risk any time you decide to move nuclear material into the public space over long distances via ground transport,” Blair said. “Bad things happen.”
From this recent article:
** A petition regarding this dangerous, unnecessary project is now before the federal government.
PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
We, the undersigned, Citizens of Canada draw the attention of the Government of Canada to the following, that
- The nuclear regulators of Canada and the United States have approved the shipment of 23,000 litres of highly radioactive liquid – to be trucked over 2000 kilometres from Chalk River, Ontario to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina;
- These shipments are to utilize casks never physically tested for liquid contents;
- The nature of the liquid material has been mischaracterized by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) as “Uranyl Nitrate Liquid,” whereas the liquid solution contains dozens of radioactive waste materials collectively more than a thousand times more radioactive than uranyl nitrate;
- This project is projected to consist of between 100 and 150 truckloads over a period of several years;
- There is considerable opposition to this project in both countries by both citizens and elected officials;
- Calculations show that one litre of this liquid is sufficient, in principle, to ruin the drinking water supply for any city in North America;
- There is no need for these shipments, given that the highly enriched uranium can be eliminated by “downblending” at the Chalk River site; and
- The radioactive liquid can also be solidified at the Chalk River site as has been done for similar radioactive liquids at Chalk River over the past 14 years.
Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to suspend these shipments immediately, pending an independent environmental assessment that will consider alternatives such as down-blending and solidification of the liquid, as originally planned.
NOTE: To nobody's surprise, an utterly lame response arrived in due course (as they say) from Canada's Minister of Natural Resources. You can read it for yourself, here.
- A slide presentation about the project
- Dr. Edwards on YouTube (23 minutes)
- HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS LIST
- More materials from CCNR (Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility)
- Media items on Facebook
- HRLM Media Items List-revised July 6/18.
- Radioactive Roads Web site
- U.S. Mayors 2014 Resolution on Nuke Transport
March 11th marks six years since the beginning of this nuclear disaster (though really, catastrophe is the more accurate word to describe the situation). Nuclear disasters are notable for never going away. They never get “better.” They never end.
Fallout is forever.
Just ask the people for whom, for example, the Chernobyl disaster of April 1986 is still a daily reality. Do the math; this accident occurred 31 years ago now. (Exiled scientist: 'Chernobyl is not finished, it has only just begun')
And the people of Japan, now 6 years into their own nuclear nightmare.
For six years now, the radioactivity spewed by the triple meltdowns that took place on Japan’s coast – in an area of the world hit frequently by earthquakes (any of which might make the nuclear situation even worse) – has been poisoning the people of Japan – who are now being obliged to accept higher levels of radioactive exposure as “acceptable” – the creatures in the Pacific Ocean (tons & tons of radioactive water from the plant gush into the ocean daily, & radiation is now detectable in fish on the west coast of North America) and, is also spread around the globe via air currents, .
One doesn’t hear much in the mainstream media about the situation on the ground for the Japanese people. Those of us who do hear about it rely mostly on alternate rather than mainstream news sources.
(Why should this be so, you ask? Mainstream media outlets determine their editorial policy (i.e., what they consider “fit to print”) around the source of their revenues, i.e., advertising dollars. It has ever been the case that “He who pays the piper, calls the tune” … has it not?
And the nuclear industry has deep pockets, very very deep pockets - often using mainstream media to print their advertising inserts as though they were news (you have likely been fooled by this yourself. Always read the fine print!)
Then there is the collusion of the nuclear industry with the rest of the nuclear “establishment” – which means government & bureaucracies of all kinds, at all levels, and it is a global problem. (WHO & IAEA & all those big agencies? All involved in the collusion. This item describes why we hear nothing about negative health impacts from the use of nuclear energy. Yes, I know. It’s shocking.)
Some Recent News / Commentary About the Fukushima Situation
** you’ll find plenty more Fukushima material on the Fairewinds site
- Fukushima nuclear disaster and the violation of women’s & children’s human rights
- High radiation as government prepares to lift evacuation order
- They want you to think the Fukushima nuclear disaster is over. But it’s still with us.
*** Fukushima - a warning to the world - must-see short YouTube (10 minutes)
Interviews with 2 Japanese women who describe the high levels of radiation people are being forced to live in / return to and, in the case of children, attend school in. Mention is also made of the reactors in the U.S. that are the same type as the Fukushima reactors & carry the same risks.
** so good to hear the voices of the people most directly affected tell us what’s really going on…
What Can You Do?
You can work in your own local community to help get your local nuclear plant(s) shut down. Nuclear accidents can happen anywhere, and if one were to happen here in Ontario, there is no reason to suppose it would play out any differently than the way it has in Chernobyl & Fukushima.
In other words, it would be ugly … very, very ugly indeed ... in a whole variety of ways.
Sign the Close Pickering petition & offer to help deliver fliers to your neighbours, friends, family & colleagues.
If you'd like to help the children of Japan, here is a group that raises funds to send affected children away for vacation time to Hawaii, in order to give their immune systems (& themselves!) a break from the radiation they are now routinely bathed in at home.
Greenpeace has a petition you can sign.
p.s. need a reminder about the causes of the Fukushima Catastrophe?
** Note: this was first posted in February. It's being highlighted once again in time for the OPG emergency "exercise" taking place this week, December 6th & 7th. Not much has changed! There are still plenty of elephants in the room. See article here about the meeting coming up tonight.
Pickering’s nuclear generating station is the 5th largest in North America and 4th oldest in North America (it’s been operating since 1971) … & is located within 30 kilometres of 2.2 million people. All of Toronto is within 50 kilometres of the Pickering station. (& don’t forget, Darlington is just down the highway too!) The plant is licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) until August 2018.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) wants to push the licence out another 10 years.
But there are elephants in the room that hardly anyone seems to be talking about.
The Elephants (in alphabetical order)
Canada’s Nuclear Regulator = unreliable
This Globe and Mail article from last October sets the stage about the heat the regulator is facing – with as yet no apparent signs the federal government is listening.
According to a CBC news item “[Commissioner of the Environment & Sustainable Development] Gelfand said 75 per cent of site safety inspections were carried out without an approved guide, and compared that scenario to a pilot taking off on a flight without going through a safety checklist.
“’I think it’s pretty serious,” she said Tuesday at a news conference across from Parliament Hill.’” (refer to the article link above)
As it happens, CNSC receives 70% of its funding from the nuclear industry in “cost recovery” fees. This means CNSC would actually appear to have a vested interest in keeping the Pickering plant operating.
& puts into question how likely it is CNSC can/will provide a truly independent & unbiased review when OPG sends the agency its license request for a renewal.
Very few of us will “bite the hand that feeds us” … will we??
Inadequate Emergency Planning
A DNA posting here remains relevant. (All that’s changed is some KI pills have been distributed to people within the so-called ‘Primary Zone’ (i.e., 10 kilometres) of the plant.)
A Toronto Star article from January 2016 asks whether Toronto is ready for a radiation emergency – & is also as relevant now as when it was published a year ago.
As a matter of fact, this Toronto Star item from 2011 – Is Ontario ready for a nuclear disaster? (published one week into the then-new Fukushima nuclear disaster) – still also remains timely!
*** We are still waiting! The Fukushima disaster began 6 years ago now … & still there are no revised emergency plans in Ontario.
Nuclear Waste On-Site
14,000+ tonnes of it! (NWMO 2017 report on waste)
According to figures published by the NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization) – a nuclear industry body – as of June 30, 2017 there were 399,703 used fuel bundles in “wet” storage and 337,114 in “dry” (see page 3 in the linked report). For a total of 736,817. The longer the plant is operating, the bigger the numbers become.
Tritium is released routinely into air & water
((((Oh & btw, your home is not insured against a nuclear accident.
** These are just a few of the “elephants in the room.” There are more!
- Health Issues
- Land Use Issues
- 1983 Accident at Pickering (& what it cost to clean it up)
- More on KI pills
- More on Tritium
- Communications from Nuclear Agencies
And if the plant is closed?
The Ontario Clean Air Alliance has studied alternatives & claims that closing the plant, & replacing the energy generated there with hydro power from Quebec can lower our electricity bills by $1 billion.
Learn more about the Ontario nuclear scene:
- Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA)
- DNA posting ‘Nukes: ‘Perfect Storm’ A-Brewing?’
- OCAA – Close Pickering campaign
Do you think nuclear power can ever be considered "green"? Some kind of "solution" in the fight against climate change?
Here are some thoughts on this topic:
Nuclear Power Will Not Save Us From Climate Change <Nov. 11/18>
A Big Fat Radioactive Lie Billionaires are hyping nuclear power as a magic cure for climate change (Dec. 2015)
Arnie Gundersen Interview (Dec. 2016)
How Nuclear Power Worsens Climate Change (Sierra Club)
Nukes as a Smokescreen (Nov. 2016, 2 minute video)
Nuclear Power and Climate Change (Dec. 2015, Gregory Jaczko, former head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC. Jaczko & other formerly pro-nuclear, now anti-nuclear dissenters)
“On top of the perennial challenges of global poverty and injustice, the two biggest threats facing human civilization in the 21st century are climate change and nuclear war. It would be absurd to respond to one by increasing the risks of the other.” – Dr Mark Diesendorf, author of Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy
"Jim Hansen is a very knowledgeable person on a lot of subjects. He is not knowledgeable on nuclear power. And it is unfortunate because he's a person of tremendous stature, but he is very poorly informed on this subject. And he does not appear to be interested in becoming better informed. I think that's unfortunate." – Gregory B. Jaczko Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2009 - 2012) Source
p.s. you might also want to check out these 15 Nuclear Mythbusters
p.p.s. +++ some great quotes on this topic in the Nukes Quotes Collection posting
** More information added to this post on Dec. 7/16. See below!
The campaign by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance to ensure that the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS) is shut down at the end of its current license period (2018) is in high gear. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has made it clear they want to run the plant for yet another 10 years, & will be asking for a license out to 2028.
Pushing a very old nuclear plant (situated in the midst of a huge population base, on the shores of Lake Ontario, drinking water source for millions) with a variety of safety & environmental concerns, & a very checkered history indeed, long-long-long past its "best before" date.
Let's not forget to mention emergency "plans" that would be about as much use as a sheet of wet tissue paper in the event the proverbial you-know-what hits the fan.
You'll find a recent update from OCAA here. It's got plenty of useful information in it!
** be sure to check out their info on tritium. Also added in to this site's Tritium section.
Be sure to take a look at these short YouTubes they've created, too:
- Your house is not insured in the case of a nuclear accident (2:30 minutes)
- Dr. Ian Fairlie on tritium emissions from Pickering & Darlington (4 minutes)
- Head of Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) on Pickering's weak emergency plans (4 minutes)
- M.D. calls for the closure of the Pickering Nuclear Station (5 minutes)
- Nuclear Scientist calls for Closing Pickering Station (5 minutes)
- Professor Jose Etcheverry calls for closure of the Pickering Nuclear Station (3 minutes)
“A major factor that contributed to the accident was the widespread assumption in Japan that its nuclear power plants were so safe that an accident of this magnitude was simply unthinkable. This assumption was accepted by nuclear power plant operators and was not challenged by regulators or by the Government. As a result, Japan was not sufficiently prepared for a severe nuclear accident in March 2011.” [August 2015 Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Foreword by the Director General]
“There was an implicit assumption that such a severe accident could not happen and thus insufficient attention was paid to such an accident by authorities.” -Toshimitsu Homma of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency in April 2013 at an international conference on Emergency Management held in Ottawa
“The Commission has verified that there was a lag in upgrading nuclear emergency preparedness and complex disaster countermeasures, and attributes this to regulators’ negative attitudes toward revising and improving existing emergency plans.” – from The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf (pg. 19)
“A “manmade” disaster: The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly “manmade.” We believe that the root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions, rather than issues relating to the competency of any specific individual. (see Recommendation 1)” — from The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (pg. 16)
“…What part of Fukushima don’t you understand? If you don’t make the modifications [re: safety & emergency planning] you run the risk of destroying the fabric of a country. It happened at Chernobyl, and it’s happening right now in Japan…” – Arnie Gundersen in an interview about the 3rd anniversary of the Fukushima accident, in March 2014. http://tinyurl.com/ntuvzmd
“Complacency and hubris are the worst enemies to nuclear safety.” - Najmedin Meshkati, an engineering professor at USC who worked on the National Academy of Sciences July 2014 report http://goo.gl/xw6BHE
“What Dr. Gerstein shows is that reasonable people, who are not malicious, and whose intent is not to kill or injure other people, will nonetheless risk killing vast numbers of people. And they will do it predictably, with awareness … They knew the risks from the beginning, at every stage … the leaders chose, in the face of serious warnings, to consciously take chances that risked disaster … Men in power are willing to risk any number of human lives to avoid an otherwise certain loss to themselves, a sure reversal of their own prospects in the short run.” – Daniel Ellsberg, quoted in the Marc Gerstein book Flirting with Disaster – Why Accidents Are Rarely Accidental (also quoted by Arnie Gundersen in the Greenpeace report Lessons from Fukushima) More great quotes
** note on November 23/16. An item has been added in below, to the section on the CNSC Whistleblower letter. Lately, the news about glaring lapses in nuclear “safety” (an oxymoron if ever there was one!) seems to be coming thick & fast.
Failure of “regulators” to actually regulate.
- Leaks. Spills
- & whistleblowers!
- A rising chorus of whistleblowers
Some who are being listened to (one hopes!); some who are not.
This will be by absolutely no means a thorough list.
But one with enough information to surely make even the most die-hard nuclear supporter give pause.
In March (2016), 7 electrical engineers employed by the U.S. nuclear “regulator,” the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) put in a petition alleging dangerous safety issues at U.S. reactors, & calling on the NRC to either fix the situations, or shut the plants down.
* Read more about this here
Canadian Groups Call on Prime Minister Trudeau
Also in March (2016), more than 10 groups called on the Canadian federal government to do a review of the Nuclear Safety & Control Act, alleging that “Modernization of the NSCA is urgently needed in light of the lack of institutional independence on the part of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster.”
* Full letter here
CNSC Whistleblower Letter
CNSC “specialists” submitted an anonymous letter to the President of the CNSC (Michael Binder – appointed in 2008 – after its previous head, Linda Keen, was fired) alleging “Our primary concern is that CNSC commissioners do not receive sufficient information to make balanced judgments.” And, “because insufficient information is made available, other branches of government cannot make informed decisions. For example, the government of Ontario cannot make a good decision about financing the refurbishment of Darlington without knowing all the facts.” Going on to cite several specific cases where tribunal members rendered decisions based on incomplete information; for example, allowing Ontario Power Generation (OPG) & CNSC staff to use out-of-date seismic risk data in a Darlington hearing.
textbook-example [Quick read! Textbook case of what the whistleblowers were complaining of.]
Federal Commissioner of the Environment & Sustainable Development: Audit Results
QUOTE: “The audit found that the CNSC conducted site inspections, identified instances of non-compliance, and followed up with plant operators. However, the Commission could not show that it has a well-documented planning process for site inspections at nuclear power plants. It did not carry out a quarter of the inspections it had planned over a two-year period, and three quarters of the inspections it did conduct went ahead without an approved inspection guide, though the Commission’s own procedures requires one. In other words, the Commission could not demonstrate that it is conducting the right number and type of inspections to provide the coverage required to confirm that compliance is sufficient.”
Audit report here
Media Items about the audit commissioner-audit-media-oct-416
Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources: feeling the heat!
& let’s not forget:
- Arnie Gundersen: 40 good years & one bad day. Compares Pickering to Fukushima
- Four lessons from Nuclear Accidents (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima)
- Hanford’s leaking tanks
- Great quote about Hanford: “The first priority at Hanford is to clean up the mess that Hanford made back in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. In fact, that’s the only priority at Hanford. This is all Hanford does. Hanford cleans up Hanford. And we’re going to spend more on the cleanup than we spent on creating all of the original plutonium, uranium and thorium that was going to be used for weapons production.”– Dr. Marco Kaltofen discussing Hanford’s nuclear mess in Fairewinds video ‘America’s Nuclear Legacy – More than 6,000 Nuclear Dumps…and Counting'
- Sellafield whistleblower
- WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Project) - the ongoing saga at a facility “designed” to last hundreds of years ... yet which started to leak just over 10 years in. Latest here
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, as they say…
Let’s face it. Claims about nuclear “safety” have always been fraudulent.
(Very partial list of nuke accidents.)
One can only hope now
that there are some people in “authority”
who have common sense
& some, well, let’s just call it chutzpah, shall we?
Who are paying attention
And take appropriate action.
** Quotes on the causes of the Fukushima accident
** Is Ontario ready for a nuclear disaster? (2011 article; still utterly relevant)
** Is Toronto ready for a radiation emergency? (Jan. 5/16 Toronto Star article. Still as relevant as when it was written)
* N.B. Press release below. Oshawa Express article Nuclear safety, intensification don’t mesh. September 27, 2016 (Toronto)
Environmental groups asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs Bill Mauro today to respect international safety guidelines and protect public safety by restricting population growth around the ten aging nuclear reactors operating in the rapidly growing Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
“The government’s growth plans put public safety at risk. Encouraging population growth around nuclear reactors makes it difficult to evacuate people in the event of a Fukushima-level nuclear accident,” said Jacqueline Wilson, counsel with the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA).
CELA, Durham Nuclear Awareness (DNA) and Greenpeace say the government has ignored international safety standards, the Fukushima disaster, and repeated advice from experts over the past thirty years, which all say high populations densities will undermine the province’s ability to safely evacuate the public in the event of a nuclear accident.
Ontario encourages residential growth in downtown Pickering and Oshawa, which are both less than 10 kilometres from the aging Pickering and Darlington nuclear stations. The Fukushima accident caused a 20 km zone around the station to be evacuated.
The groups are concerned by the disconnect between the government’s growth policies and its recent decision to extend the lives of Pickering and Darlington reactors. Next month, Ontario Power Generation begins a decades-long $12 billion project to repair the Darlington reactors to keep them operating until mid-century.
“Ontario’s growth plans are on a collision course with its plans to keep the Pickering and Darlington nuclear stations operating. Operating reactors in the GTA was a bad idea in the first place, but to then encourage growth near these reactors is sheer folly,” said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a senior energy analyst with Greenpeace.
The groups formally asked the Ministry to review its current growth and land use policies, including the Places to Grow Act, under Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights. The province has three months to respond.
An article published by a group of European risk specialists in the journal Risk Analysis this month estimated another Fukushima-scale accident somewhere in the world within the next century.
Despite its responsibility for public safety, Ontario has yet to modernize its offsite nuclear emergency plans five years after Fukushima.
- 30 –
- Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Senior Energy Analyst, Greenpeace, 416-884-7053, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Jacqueline Wilson, counsel, CELA, 416-960-2284, ex 7213, email@example.com