To the Editor,
Re: “Cherry picking” (letter to the Editor, November 24).
The “cherry” I picked for my article (“The
good news about nuclear waste,” NRT November 17) was picked for me, by millions of
scared people who deserve to know the facts.
Of course nuclear power generates other
forms of waste – it involves concrete structures, industrial processes, staff that drive cars
to work, and yes, resource extraction at the
front end (albeit orders of magnitude less than
for fossil fuels).
My article, however, addressed spent nuclear fuel – one of the top three (if not THE
top) concerns that folks have with nuclear
power, and the subject of a $26 billion longterm management project that many concerned Canadians will soon be making big
It is a fact, and not “misleading,” that a
CANDU bundle provides a century’s worth
of electricity for an average home, and that
the actual mass of high-level waste per bundle
is about 160 g.
Most Canadians would probably tell you
it’s surely many tonnes of green toxic filth for
which we have no plan – and this is the point
Original letter to North Renfrew Times (2021 November 24) from G. Csullog
Re: “The Good News About Nuclear Waste” NRT November 17.
Pro-nuclear folks continue to write misleading
Regarding “the actual amount of this high-level
radioactive waste in each fuel bundle is only
about 160 grams by the way, or in terms of volume, about the size of a 9V battery” - that is unbelievably misleading.
To get the 160g of long-lived radionuclides out
of fuel bundles requires reprocessing - one does
not magically pluck this out of a bundle like a
battery would be plucked from a device.
Jeremy Whitlock also fails to mention the millions of cubic meters of mining and milling waste
from fuel fabrication - somewhat bigger than a 9v
I am not anti-nuclear - I am pro-facts.
Tell the whole story - don’t cherry pick feel