NSDF rally
Dear Editor,
I attended the rally in front of the Supreme Court regarding the request by the Kebaowek First Nation for a judicial review of the decision by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to grant a permit to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) to build a Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF), and subsequently listened on Zoom to the final arguments from lawyers on both sides.
The judge seemed to be very astute in her questioning of the lawyers and she concluded that because such a situation would affect not only FNC relations but also many others living in the area, she would need to examine all aspects carefully before making a decision about bringing the matter to the Supreme Court.
As I listened to the final presentations, I was surprised to hear the CNSC lawyer talking about a case involving risk assessment for fire at a dock to be built in Vancouver for the Trans Mountain Pipeline being compared to the risk assessment for the environmental impact of a nuclear power dump. In fact, the lawyer defending the Kebaowek FN in his final argument underlined the absurdity that the CNSC was hoping to mitigate all environmental effects by a safety plan! I felt hopeful that something unexpected might result from this proceeding, despite a general sense of powerlessness engendered by all the lack of concern for the public’s input during the public consultations.
My hope was beginning to brighten after reading the description on the billboard in front of the Supreme Court describing why the institution exists. This was reflected in the testimony of one of the First Nations attendees who stood in full colourful regalia in front of the building. Her story was of rebuilding her own life based on studying her rights under the law as a woman, a member of First Nations, and the rights of all including those with disabilities.
I’m hoping for a historic precedent-setting decision regarding implementation of UNDRIP in relations with the Crown, but also a review of government standards on nuclear waste storage. It could begin with aligning our standards with international standards and asking for an ARTEMIS review of any nuclear waste dump projects (a review involving independent expert opinion and advice based on internationally-accepted safety standards, technical guidance and good practice).
As we work together to defend our rights in this country, we may all need to examine the laws that protect us as individuals.
Cathy Fox, member of Pontiac Environmental Protection, resident of Portage du Fort
Nuclear a dirty, dangerous distraction
Dear Editor,
All energy systems make use of toxic materials, including wind and solar. But renewable energy systems do not create these poisons. Nor do they disseminate them into the environment.
By contrast, nuclear power plants create hundreds of varieties of radioactive elements that were never found in nature before the discovery of nuclear fission 85 years ago. Some of these poisons (especially newly created radioactive hydrogen and carbon) are routinely emitted into the environment.
Canadians will pay tens of billions of dollars to try to sequester these human-made radioactive wastes for the next few million years. Wind and solar create no such toxic legacy, nor any long-term liability. All the materials used by wind and solar can be be recycled, unlike the radioactively activated steel and concrete from the core of a nuclear reactor that has become unusable radioactive garbage.
What Alice-in-Wonderland definition of the word “clean” does the Canadian Nuclear Society suggest we use? Is a clean technology one that routinely mass-produces indestructible toxic materials that did not previously exist? Or is the word “clean” simply a convenient dodge used to justify taking government money away from genuinely clean options, investing it instead in a dirty, dangerous distraction such as nuclear?
Gordon Edwards, Hampstead, Que.
Radioactive politics
Dear Editor,
What will be the result?
There will be federal, provincial and municipal elections in a year or so. Promises are being made, most of which relate to short-term issues. I feel that the biggest issue is just upstream and upwind for Pontiac residents: are we going to have a massive landfill of radioactive material placed just beside the river, to be looked after by a non-elected consortium, for a couple of hundred thousand years?
Whatever promises politicians make about short-term policies, schemes to halt inflation or control immigration, or such hot air issues that governments, once elected, never actually address, a near surface disposal site of radioactive debris is not often mentioned. There are few undertakings of humankind that can be as long-lasting as accumulating artificially-energized matter, and expecting it to stay put and stay safe for more time than civilizations have lasted up to now.
It’s just something to consider when choosing where your vote and support will go the next time we’re asked.
Robert Wills, Thorne and Shawville
