To the editor,
Last month I attended the South Bruce Nuclear Exploration Forum in Teeswater, and it was a very well-organized promotional forum.
It included many consultants, speakers, experts and panelists, all encouraging the attendees to explore the opportunities this project could bring to the community, but there was no discussion about possible risks.
Questions were permitted but had to be written out and handed in so they could be screened.
Questions that raised safety concerns or risks weren’t read. When a question did get read by one moderator asking about the possible effects of nuclear stigma, the consultant didn’t give an answer but instead responded by telling people they could read about it in the report. Questions were shortened to remove any negative information about risks or accidents as part of the question. Why wasn’t there allowed to be any inclusion about risks shared from the public stage?
A repeated theme at the event was promoting it as an international consensus that geological disposal is the best option to safely contain and isolate used nuclear fuel. However, history shows the nuclear industry consensus has been wrong before. One example is the salt mines in Germany. How do we know they will get it right this time?
The promoters also liked to direct our eyes up to the lights and point out how we were benefiting from the nuclear industry. So, it was rather ironic that at an event promoting an organization that often talks about how they are planning for all possible worst-case scenarios, nobody paid heed to the weather warnings and lunch was eaten in the dark because no back up plan was in place for a power outage.
Explore all the information available and read more than just the promotional press releases. Explore the opportunities but don’t ignore the risks.
Michelle Stein
Teeswater
