|
Comments by the Owen Sound Sun Times regarding the
Nuclear Waste Dump
Flawed process used to reach
conclusion
Our Opinion, Editorial -
Owen Sound Sun Times, Feb.
19, 2005
A referendum would have been
better than a survey
Put aside for a while the issues
surrounding whether a proposed deep-rock facility for the long-term storage of
low and intermediate level nuclear waste is a good idea. We believe in the
potential of nuclear energy, knowing full well that there are concerns about
safe storage of waste. We've said before that science and science alone must be
what determines the safest options. Storing it near the drinking supply of
millions is reason for caution, but so is shipping the waste over many
kilometres to northern Ontario.
The concerns which have been most recently expressed in this paper - regarding
the telephone survey of Kincardine residents and Ontario Power Generation's
discussions with area municipalities - focus to a large degree on process.
The contract with Kincardine says it won't get $22.1 million over 30 years
unless its fully supportive. In fact, if any of Saugeen Shores ($8.5 million),
Huron-Kinloss ($2.4 million) Arran-Elderslie and Brockton ($1.3 million each) is
deemed unsupportive by OPG, it could jeopardize the payments to all, the
contract says.
What exactly does supportive mean? Exactly how far can councillors - who are
supposed to represent the interests of the people - go in publicly criticizing
and questioning OPG's plans? Why would such a clause be in the agreement at all?
We also wonder why a telephone survey was used to gauge public support instead
of a binding referendum.
According to a recent Greenpeace submission in The Sun Times, this "referendum
should have been conducted in summer, when seasonal residents could participate
fully." The article also pointed out that none of the neighbouring
municipalities or First Nations were included in the opinion poll and none of
other communities that depend on Lake Huron or are on the transportation routes
have been asked if they want a radioactive waste dump.
Admittedly, there are no easy answers when it comes nuclear waste, which is why
the process employed by OPG and the various municipal councils should have been
more straight forward.
With permission of the Sun
Times
Nuclear Waste in
Italy
“Italy is hoping to export 99% of its nuclear waste to
Britain after public demonstrations made it impossible to find a suitable site
on Italian soil.
The Italian government has 235 tonnes of
spent fuel from decommissioned reactors. Contracts worth
₤200m are on offer to British
Nuclear Fuels in Cumbria to reprocess the fuel, provided that Britain keeps the
waste and the plutonium and uranium that would be recovered. Italy’s nuclear
industry was shut down after the Chernobyl disaster.
The Department of Trade and
Industry cleared the way for the import of nuclear fuel at the end of last
night, when rules insisting that waste should be returned to the country of
origin were relaxed.”
The Guardian Weekly, January
14-20, 2005
|
