Response from Nuclear Awareness Project (an anti-nuclear group based in southern Ontario) to my 99/03/24 letter in the Toronto Star. This response was published 99/04/15:


NUCLEAR WASTE IS PLENTIFUL

Re: Nuclear waste compares favourably to alternatives. (letter, March 24). Jeremy Whitlock failed to mention that used nuclear fuel is only a fraction of the radioactive waste resulting from nuclear power.

If we include the waste from uranium mining, we'd be talking about radioactive uranium mill tailings in Ontario alone that could fill 60,000 hockey rinks to the top of the boards.

The mines in Elliot Lake have closed, but the tailings remain on the landscape, blowing in the wind and eroding into the Serpent River watershed. Now there's a uranium boom in Saskatchewan, and that landscape is also being polluted by mill tailings.

Let's not overlook the routine pollution from reactors, which includes cancer-causing radioactive hydrogen, called tritium, as well as radioactive carbon-14.

The nuclear station operators intentionally dump radioactive waste into the air and water as part of normal operations. There's a double standard for the control of radioactive pollution that allows 350 times the level of hazard when compared to other non-radioactive hazardous materials.

Nuclear fuel waste management is a real dilemma, since it is lethal on exposure and remains dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. The container that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has said it could use to bury used fuel bundles in the Canadian Shield could begin leaking after just 500 years. Future generations wouldn't know what hit them.

Nuclear power is not the solution to climate change, it's part of the problem. Aside from radioactive waste and pollution, there is the ever-increasing risk of catastrophic reactor accidents as the nuclear stations age. Nuclear and coal stations need to be phased out in favour of energy-efficiency measures and green energy options like wind and solar.

Irene Kock

Nuclear Awareness Project

Uxbridge

[My response to this letter]