By Donna Dillman, as told to Radio Station Lake 88.1 and broadcast on their "On Focus" Program on March 16th, 2009.

I've come to believe that extracting uranium is not actually about nuclear generation at all, tho it is possible that Premier McGuinty believes that it is. Nuclear energy is not as hyped - it is not green, not clean, not safe and certainly not affordable. A grade 8-student researching the information that is readily available would come to the same conclusion.

Nuclear energy is not clean. It is not green. Not when you consider the entire cycle from exploration to fuel rod disposal. From the airplanes used in the exploration stage; to the machines and equipment used in the drilling and processing; to the fuel used in transport;
to the vast amount of cement for the power plants; to the cost of fuel rod storage, and to decommissioning

All along the line, huge amounts of dirty fossil fuels are used. It takes 14 years of operation for nuclear power plants to break even on carbon costs and THAT is with high-grade uranium.

When we must move to lower grades, which is what is available locally, and, in the big picture, that move is imminent; it is expected to be a negative return. Uranium, like oil, is not sustainable.

It's not safe, besides the fact that there are numerous studies pointing to increased cancers, birth defects and mortality rates, nuclear facilities can't be properly insured because no insurance company can afford the risk; think Chernobyl & Three Mike Island. Around the world and here at home, there are lesser accidents, leaks and exposures happening almost weekly these days and the next big one could happen anytime, anywhere.

As well, and despite claims to the contrary, Canada's uranium does find its way into depleted uranium weapons and has been doing so since we knowingly supplied the uranium for the Hiroshima and Nigasaki bombs back in the 40's. (Over 85% of the uranium that we currently extract is exported, 76% of that to the US where we lose all control over what it is used for.)

Hiroshima aside, ask any Iraqi citizen, today, how safe that is, or look at pictures of the birth deformities in that country and increasingly to the off-spring of returning soldiers and their spouses.

And it is certainly not affordable - not on many counts, including financially. Just to continue with current percentages of nuclear generation, huge subsidies are necessitated, - $42 billion is currently budgeted in Ontario

Every month on our Ontario hydro bills, we are faced with the "debt retirement charge" relating to the nuclear fiasco of the 80's and 90's. No plant has ever come in on-time or on-budget.

The March 2001 Economist Magazine reported, and I quote, "Nuclear energy, once claimed to be too cheap to meter, is now to costly to matter." I've only touched the tip of the iceberg. It is clear that clean, green, safe and cheap is pure propaganda.

And it is not about medical isotopes, either. Cyclotron, which creates radioactive fluoride to detect tumours can be used in the place of uranium. In fact, it is my assertion that many more cancers result from various aspects of the uranium cycle than will ever be 'caught and cured' using it for medical isotopes. I believe Australia uses cyclotrons and I read recently that at least one Alberta hospital is using them as well.

It is my belief that the nuclear generation story is being propagated to give the moral high ground to extraction, so that uranium remains available for use in weapons and bombs.

I'd like to think that I am wrong, but I've stopped being shocked by such possibilities. It saddens me, however, to think that that is the world my grandchildren are growing into.