{"id":19289,"date":"2014-07-17T18:34:42","date_gmt":"2014-07-17T10:34:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=19289"},"modified":"2014-09-25T11:44:51","modified_gmt":"2014-09-25T03:44:51","slug":"lake-huron-is-no-place-for-a-nuclear-waste-dump","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2014\/07\/17\/lake-huron-is-no-place-for-a-nuclear-waste-dump\/","title":{"rendered":"Lake Huron is no place for a nuclear waste dump"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

\"Lake<\/a>
Lake Huron. Photo by Brucesky \/ Wikimedia Commons.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Is dilution really the solution to pollution\u2014especially when it\u2019s nuclear waste that can stay radioactive for 100,000 years? A four-member expert group told a federal joint review panel it is.<\/p>\n

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 metres of contaminated water could leak from the site, although it\u2019s \u201chighly improbable.\u201d But even if it did leak, they argued, the amount is small compared to Lake Huron\u2019s water volume and the quantity of rain that falls into it.<\/p>\n

If the materials were instead buried in Canadian Shield granite, any leaking waste would be diluted by active streams and marshes, the experts claimed: \u201cHence, 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Others aren\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n

Michigan\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

According to Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump, burying such highly toxic wastes in limestone next to 21 per cent of the world\u2019s fresh water \u201cdefies common sense.\u201d The group\u2019s website notes, \u201cThere 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.\u201d The Great Lakes are only 12,000 years old!<\/p>\n

On top of that, retired Ontario Power Generation research scientist and chemist Frank R. Greening wrote to the review panel stating that OPG has \u201cseriously underestimated, sometimes by factors of more than 100\u201d the radioactivity of material to be buried.<\/p>\n

Greening says the company acknowledged his criticism but downplayed its seriousness, which he believes raises doubts about the credibility of OPG\u2019s research justifying the project. \u201cTheir response has been, \u2018Oops we made a mistake but it isn\u2019t a problem\u2019 and that really bothers me as a scientist,\u201d he told Kincardine News. \u201cIt is rationalizing after the fact.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the newspaper, \u201ca radiation leak at a nuclear waste site in New Mexico\u2014cited by OPG as an example of a successful facility\u2014is further fuelling criticism of the project.\u201d In February, radiation was detected in vaults and in the air a kilometre from the U.S. Department of Energy\u2019s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, where radioactive materials from the nuclear weapons program are stored. The facility, the world\u2019s only deep geologic repository, had only been in use for 15 years and is closed for now. The cause of the leak isn\u2019t yet known.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

This \u201cout of sight, out of mind\u201d mentality must end. We can\u2019t continue to dump garbage into the oceans, waterways and air or bury it in the ground and hope it will disappear. If we can\u2019t find better ways to use or at least reduce waste products, we must stop producing them.<\/p>\n

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\u2019t afford to add the risk of radioactive contamination to one of the world\u2019s largest sources of fresh water.<\/p>\n

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington. Learn more atwww.davidsuzuki.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Website links<\/h6>\n

OPG Proposal to bury waste:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/bruce-nuclear-waste-burial.weebly.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Toronto Star article:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.thestar.com\/business\/2014\/04\/18\/leak_from_nuclear_waste_s <\/a><\/p>\n

Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n

SGLND Petition:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.gopetition.com\/petitions\/stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

Kincardine News \/ Greening:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.kincardinenews.com\/2014\/03\/27\/ontario-power-generation-or\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  Is dilution really the solution to pollution\u2014especially when it\u2019s nuclear waste that can stay radioactive for 100,000 years? A …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37,5742],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-health","category-science-2","mauthors-david-suzuki","mauthors-the-canadian-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19289","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}