Nuclear Waste Dump on the Shore of the Great Lakes Proposal, See Dr. Suzuki’s Article

A Nuclear Waste Dump on the Shore of the Great Lakes?

| July 16, 2014 8:46 am | Comments
Print Friendly

dsuzukiIs dilution really the solution to pollution—especially when it’s nuclear waste that can stay radioactive for 100,000 years? A four-member expert group told a federal joint review panel it is.

The panel is examining an Ontario Power Generation proposal to bury low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste from the Darlington, Pickering and Bruce nuclear plants in limestone at the Bruce site in Kincardine, beside Lake Huron. According to the Toronto Star, the experts reported that 1,000 cubic meters of contaminated water could leak from the site, although it’s “highly improbable.” But even if it did leak, they argued, the amount is small compared to Lake Huron’s water volume and the quantity of rain that falls into it.

lakehuronfi
This “out of sight, out of mind” mentality must end. We can’t continue to dump garbage into the oceans, waterways and air or bury it in the ground and hope it will disappear.

If the materials were instead buried in Canadian Shield granite, any leaking waste would be diluted by active streams and marshes, the experts claimed: “Hence, the volumes of the bodies of water available for dilution at the surface are either immense (Great Lakes) or actively flowing … so the dilution capacity is significant.” 

Others aren’t convinced. The Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump group has more than 62,000 signatures on a petition opposing the dump. Many communities around the Great Lakes, home to 40-million people, have passed resolutions against the project, including Canadian cities Toronto, Mississauga, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Kingston, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Windsor and more, and local governments in the states of Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York and Ohio. The United Tribes of Michigan, representing 12 First Nations, is also opposed.

Michigan’s Senate recently adopted resolutions to urge President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Congress to intervene, and for the International Joint Commission, the Great Lakes Commission and all Great Lakes States and Ontario and Quebec to get involved.

According to Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump, burying such highly toxic wastes in limestone next to 21 percent of the world’s fresh water “defies common sense.” The group’s website notes, “There are no precedents anywhere in the world for burying radioactive nuclear waste in limestone. The repository must function to safely contain the nuclear wastes for over 100,000 years. No scientist or geologist can provide a 100,000 year guarantee.” The Great Lakes are only 12,000 years old!

On top of that, retired Ontario Power Generation research scientist and chemist Frank R. Greening wrote to the review panel stating that OPG has “seriously underestimated, sometimes by factors of more than 100” the radioactivity of material to be buried.

Greening says the company acknowledged his criticism but downplayed its seriousness, which he believes raises doubts about the credibility of OPG’s research justifying the project. “Their response has been, ‘Oops we made a mistake but it isn’t a problem’ and that really bothers me as a scientist,” he told Kincardine News. “It is rationalizing after the fact.”

According to the newspaper, “a radiation leak at a nuclear waste site in New Mexico—cited by OPG as an example of a successful facility—is further fueling criticism of the project.” In February, radiation was detected in vaults and in the air a kilometre from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, where radioactive materials from the nuclear weapons program are stored. The facility, the world’s only deep geologic repository, had only been in use for 15 years and is closed for now. The cause of the leak isn’t yet known.

Those and other factors led the joint review panel to re-open hearings beginning September 9. They initially ended October 30, 2013. A federal cabinet decision is expected sometime next year.

This “out of sight, out of mind” mentality must end. We can’t continue to dump garbage into the oceans, waterways and air or bury it in the ground and hope it will disappear. If we can’t find better ways to use or at least reduce waste products, we must stop producing them.

In the meantime, this project must be halted. The Great Lakes are already threatened by pollution, agricultural runoff, invasive species, climate change and more. We can’t afford to add the risk of radioactive contamination to one of the world’s largest sources of fresh water.

Written with Contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Sheeple Awaken! It Is Time Everyone Quit Fooling Themselves!

Experts: Fukushima ‘globally enhanced’ cesium-137 levels in air by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude — Radioactive plume that reached Europe “contaminated the land, and as a consequence the whole food chain” — Concentrations greatly underestimated

 
Published: August 4th, 2014 at 3:44 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
96 comments

http://enenews.com/experts-fukushima-disaster-globally-enhanced-cesium-137-levels-in-air-by-2-to-3-orders-of-magnitude-radioactive-plume-that-reached-europe-contaminated-the-land-and-as-a-consequence-the-whol?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29

 

Environmental Science & Technology (American Chemical Society), Published Sept. 3, 2013:Size Distributions of Airborne Radionuclides from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident at Several Places in Europe […] Before the FDNPP accident, average 137Cs levels were typically of 1 μBq m−3 in Central Europe and lower average values (<0.3 μBq m−3) were characteristic of northern, western and southern Europe. […] During the passage of contaminated air masses from Fukushima, airborne 137Cs levels were globally enhanced by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude.

Collaboration Network on EuroArctic Environmental Radiation Protection and Research (pdf), March 12, 2014: Traces of Fukushima nuclear power plant accident observed in the EuroArctic region […] As it can be seen from the figure the computer model underestimates the 131I concentrations […] As seen from Fig. 4 [Comparison between observed 137Cs concentrations and results of EEMEP dispersion model (MET, unpublished study)], there is a good agreement between measured and calculated arrival times, but calculated concentrations are at least one order of magnitude too low compared to measurements. Thus, as in the case with modeling of 131I concentrations with Finnish SILAM, the model used in Norway also underestimated 137Cs concentrations.

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Volume 299, Issue 1, January 2014: Radionuclides from Fukushima accident in Thessaloniki, Greece and Milano, Italy […] After the Fukushima accident a number of dose assessments have been carried out for the populations living in the north-west fallout zone of the Fukushima nuclear accident, by MEXT in Japan, DOE/NNSA in USA, IRSN in France, with quite similar projected dose values. In the more affected regions the estimated projected doses reach particularly significant values, some of them even above 200 mSv, which are no longer in the range of “low doses” according to UNSCEAR 2000 definition. The level of external projected doses in upcoming years is up to 4 Sv lifetime in the high-contaminated areas of 30 MBq m-² of 137,134Cs. On the contrary, the radioactive plume that reached European countries has only small amounts of radioactive isotopes. However, these isotopes, that were observed at low-level in the air boundary layer, were deposited by wet and dry deposition and have contaminated the land, and as a consequence the whole food chain. So the radioisotopes of cesium and iodine were found above their detection limits in all environmental samples but very far below levels of concern.

See also: Fukushima nuclear fuel fragments found in Europe — 10,000+ km from reactors — Plume came directly from N. America — Hot particles a “significant part” radioactive release — Quickly spread over entire hemisphere — Film shows core material on Norway air filter (PHOTO)

 
Published: August 4th, 2014 at 3:44 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
96 comments

Related Posts

  1. AP: Anonymous IAEA official says iodine-131 release appears to be continuing across Europe November 12, 2011
  2. Bloomberg: Nuclear revival dying in Europe — “The future of nuclear energy in Europe looks very dim indeed” says consultant — “Simply too risky” February 14, 2013
  3. ABC calls radiation plume over Europe “massive, but harmless” — IAEA now claims Hungary lab likely source of iodine-131 — “Extremely unlikely” says director November 17, 2011
  4. Radioactive substances rose 5 km in air on March 14-15 — Carried by jet stream to US and Europe June 22, 2011
  5. Experts on iodine in Europe: Something very unpleasant has happened — Either serious accident or reactor emergency required venting radioactive substances November 17, 2011

Now For Our Own Homemade Nuclear Nightmare

Expert: No one in world has ever dealt with something like WIPP disaster — Continuous release of radioactive material ’24/7′ to environment — Nobody knows when leaking will end — It’s a ‘major failure’ for so many people to be exposed — Gov’t yet to say if dump will open again (AUDIO)

 
Published: April 6th, 2014 at 3:13 am ET 
By  
Email Article Email Article 
74 comments

AP, Apr 4, 2014: Workers are prepared to encounter contamination [&] will try to figure out what caused [WIPP’s] mysterious leak [of radiation that] contaminated 21 workers […] [No one’s been] underground […] to find the source of the leak and determine if [the fire & radiation] are related.

Nuclear Hotseat #145, with host Libbe HaLevy, M.A., Apr. 1, 2014:

  • 5:15 in — Don Hancock, director of the Nuclear Waste Safety program and administrator at Southwest Research and Information Center: Data from what’s being captured […] and what comes out of the filters, is that there have been continuing releases 24/7 […] There still is contamination coming out of the underground […] Numbers move around, but there’s always some amount of radioactivity in the underground air and lesser amounts being vented to the environment. Why it happened, why it was released, how much was really released, how much contamination there is in the underground, how long the releases continue, whether there could be further releases given that we don’t know what the situation is […] All of those of things are unknowns.
  • 7:30 in — Hancock: It’s not credible to think that 21 workers breathed in contamination and the only place that there is contamination is on the workers. There clearly has to have been soil contamination. DOE’s own modeling is that there’s extensive soil contamination around the site. So there is a lot more soil sampling that needs to be done. […] This is one of the many things that we don’t know -– How much came out, and where it is now?
  • 8:30 in – Hancock: 40+ workers [still] waiting for results […] certainly is possible there will be more than 21 […] This is totally unacceptable […] There’s no reason that other workers should have come in and been contaminated, so it’s a major failure […] There was never supposed to be this radiation release at all for 10,000 years.
  • 11:45 in — Hancock: The DOE itself hasn’t said when, or if, WIPP will reopen. The fact is that we don’t know […] what caused the release, how to stop it, if underground can be decontaminated, how to decontaminate surface, how to deal with worker health problems — None of those are known […] There is no instance in the world where you have an underground salt mine significantly contaminated with radiation […] there is no experience in dealing with this situation. So we’re starting from square one. It will be difficult, if not impossible, and also very costly to cleanup the underground. Based on my 38 years in working with the Department of Energy, I find it virtually inconceivable — I hope they will decide if they can’t do total cleanup of the underground, I hope they will decide not to reopen it. […] We need independent analysis, independent medical people, and independent technical folks to look at what happened and why it happened and what kind of decontamination could be done, if any.

Full interview available for download here

%d bloggers like this: