Gives a lot of clean air
Radioactivity emitted accounts for less than 1/10th of 1 per cent of average Canadian's yearly dose

 


Town rallies against enriched uranium plan


Sept. 18.


Clashing views on nuclear waste


Sept. 18.

The two stories mentioned above, published in the same edition of your paper, bring at least one salient fact to light. When it comes to anything involving the word "nuclear," many prefer to judge based on perceived risk as opposed to actual risk. They choose to ignore the science and the regulations in place of anti-nuclear dogma.

Can you really blame them? In today's fast-paced world information is usually passed in the form of a sound byte which is far more conducive to the accusation than it is to the actual explanation. Several decades of anti-nuclear sound bytes have left the debate a little one-sided, partly because a newspaper letter or column is not nearly enough to explain the workings and benefits of Canada's nuclear industry.

With regard to deep geological disposal, it is important to note that the major concern, retrieval, can be addressed by this plan. An initial monitoring period is already incorporated into the plan that may be extended indefinitely if this option is deemed necessary. There is also the perception that this method simply involves burying the waste. This simplification ignores the complexity of the engineering barriers that are in place. These include the fuel pellet itself, which contains all the radioactive material, the fuel cladding, a two layer stainless steel/copper container, a tightly packed layer of bentonite clay, various layers of slurries, high-temperature concrete, and finally proper sight selection in an arid and stable region of the Canadian Shield.

We also have a handy natural example of the feasibility of deep geological disposal. In Gabon, Africa the remains of several large natural nuclear reactors (where conditions in uranium ore deposits were such that a chain reaction naturally occurred) have remained intact for several billion years without dispersing their plutonium content.

Radiation is another issue and one that is perhaps most misunderstood. Those espousing the danger seem not to comprehend that while the nuclear industry does emit radioactivity, this accounts for less than 1/10th of 1 per cent of a typical Canadian's yearly dose. We are exposed to radioactivity every single day of our lives from the ground, from the sun, from the food we eat, and even from ourselves. I often wonder if the fear of radioactivity would be so great if it was general knowledge that every banana we eat is bringing radioactive potassium into our body. Or, perhaps more poignantly, the amount of radioactive material in just two human beings is enough to fall under the regulation of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The fact is that nuclear power is an essential tool as we go forward into a clean air future. Even traditional environmentalists are recognizing this fact. In Canada, every month it prevents the release of more than 6 million tonnes of air pollution. That's a lot of clean air and that sounds good to me.


Andrew Daley, Hamilton, Ont.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1