To the editor,
There are a number of legitimate risks and concerns regarding the proposed plan to centralize and dispose of all of Canada’s most toxic nuclear wastes here in South Bruce. However, a Russian takeover of the Canadian government is not one of them.
In my opinion, it would be about as likely as Bruce Power being hit by a wayward meteorite. And for proponents of the deep geological repository (DGR), such as Tony Zettel, to exploit our current fears regarding the plight of the Ukraine people as one more reason to secure nuclear waste in a South Bruce DGR is both ludicrous and somewhat distasteful.
I also find it ironic Mr. Zettel would cite an obscure possibility of a Russian invasion as a risk factor when in an earlier letter to this paper (“DGR decision is about risk and choice” – Feb 3) he provided an extended lecture on ‘Risk Assessment 101.’ And in previous rants he had berated those opposed to this DGR for exaggerating obscure risks as nothing short of “fear mongering” concocted by “anti-nuke activists” – an accusation I somewhat agree with and, as a strategy, not needed since the actual risks are real and concerning enough.
For many of us who oppose this DGR, we fear these risks are unknown or, at best, speculative cranked out by the NWMO’s computer models and will likely only come to fruition sometime after the burying of the waste. Since it is a fact, spent nuclear fuel will be lethally toxic for centuries to come. And buried far underground it will be the legacy of those who boasted (and still do!) about the miracle of nuclear energy but never, from day one, having a solution to its waste. For indeed this DGR is an experiment, not done anywhere else in the world, and so close to the largest body of freshwater in the world. With many fearful risks, such as possible leakage into the waters of the Great Lakes, the drinking water of over 40 million people who are subject to the risk but have no vote in the matter. Add to this the surface exposure of radiation during the decades of waste repackaging done before the waste even gets buried. As miniscule as these risks are made out to be (“near zero” in Mr. Zettel’s earlier letter) they are much more real than a cluster bomb attack by a Russian bomber.
However, I could be wrong.
Perhaps as Hollywood portrayed it, “The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!” Or as served up to us as mere “food for thought” in Zettel’s letter in the March 3 issue of this paper: “Never mind a few thousand years – can we be certain we’ll be free of war terrorism or serious economic collapse even for the next few generations?”
He may have something there. But I sincerely doubt that we will ever see a Russian submarine make its way up the St. Lawrence or Russian marines storming the beaches of Lake Huron.
David Wood
Mildmay
