To the editor,
In response to Tony Zettel’s letter of Nov. 9 (’10 takeaways on nuclear’), it is understandable that his top 10 changes showing nuclear has gone from being a bad to good word over the last four years all ring of cheerleading. After all, he is dependent on the nuclear industry for his livelihood.
It is important to note that only two of his top 10 relate to the proposal to dump all of Canada’s high-level radioactive waste in the Great Lakes Basin near Teeswater. Even if one can agree that nuclear may have a role to play as an energy source, agreeing that an experiment should be green lit to bury the waste so close to the primary source of drinking water for over 40 million people in Canada and the United States does not follow.
The only sane thing to do is place a moratorium on this proposal until residents in the Great Lakes Basin – including in potential host communities, neighbouring communities and transportation corridor communities – are engaged in a direct and active dialogue facilitated by a trusted third party.
In the meantime, instead of abandoning the waste, use the rolling stewardship model to maintain the status quo until a scientifically proven safe alternative for storage can be proven. That would allow for timely corrective action when needed, ensure monitoring, robust packaging and retrievability and repackaging if necessary.
Mr. Zettel states that “the DGR project will be environmentally safe. Radioactive material is not going to leak into the waterways, and local residents are not going to see adverse health effects.”
I wish I had his crystal ball. Then I would know what numbers to use the next time I buy a lottery ticket.
Chris Palmer
West Grey
