|
APRIL 10th , 2009 Happy Easter to all those celebrating this weekend, and Happy Spring to everyone. Wendy Rocoskie's Letter to the Editor is a must read in this edition of the UNews, as is Linda Harvey, MD's written presentation to the Council of the City of Pickering. As well as announcements of a local meeting (in Maberly), plus one in Oakville and three upcoming in Toronto, we have an abundance of news on the nuclear front CCAMU is
ramping up its educational efforts and would appreciate donations to help
with the associated costs. To support CCAMU's multi-pronged public education,
research and legal campaign, please designate cheques, big or small, to:
Updated
information and history can be found at: ccamu.ca and the Uranium Citizens'
Inquiry site at: http://www.uraniumcitizensinquiry.com/
remains a valuable resource on all aspects of the uranium cycle. |
| 1)
COMMUNITY MEETING (THIRD IN A SERIES) - April 26th 2 - 5 p.m. 1) COMMUNITY
MEETING (THIRD IN A SERIES)
2) DRILLER
CONFIRMS 15 DRILL HOLES Reprinted with permission from writer. The original article
can be found at While there are those who understand Frontenac Ventures Corporation only drilled a total of 15 holes in 2008 - let me assure everyone that there has been much more going on at the Robertsville uranium exploration site between the summer and fall of 2008. As a matter of fact - all necessary trees have been removed and many trails and roads built in readiness for the vigorous 2009 drilling program. After overlaying the injunction map proposed drill holes
onto the Ministry of Mines and Development enlarged section of the Mining
Claims Map dated January 17, 2009, which I ordered from Ministry of Mines
and Development in Sudbury - it appears that not one drill hole is on
any of the withdrawn mining claim areas which are mentioned in the Memorandum
of Understanding between the government and Algonquin Nations. We are all extremely happy the unjust lawsuit against the Algonquin Nations is dropped - and all court costs for each band has been paid in full for them. George White, in a recent publication in the Frontenac News, advised no core samples were taken.....why then did Downing Drilling Co. state - core samples were drilled by their company? In the M.O.U. it is stated that FVC is willing to use Ministry of Mines and Development "Best Practices". According to Mr. Ramesh Mandal of the Min. of Mines and Development, Senior Geologist at Sudbury, best practices are to fill and cap the drilled holes - all of them. Why then does the M.O.U. state that "geologically inactive" holes will be filled? Mr. Mandal explained geologically inactive means "not enough uranium to be economically viable". So then, it begs the question - what does FVC plan to do with the "geologically active" holes (the ones with enough uranium to be economically viable). Leave them open to vent radon gas, leave others to leach radioactive contamination into the aquifers? The publication also stated that Downing Drilling Co. had no plans to drill at the present time - is that perhaps because it is WINTER? We are not a bunch of dummies - we can read between the lines. Another discrepancy is that a report is supposedly to be forwarded to the Min. of Mines and Development as of March, 2009. The last report was due Oct. 2008. I was advised to call Min. of Mines and Development in
January for a copy of the report (which is privileged under the Access
to Information Act). When I called I was advised that Frontenac Ventures
Corp. had requested and was granted an extension to November 2009 for
all reports on activities performed at the Robertsville Exploration Site
- including the ones that were due in 2008, and subsequent obligatory
reports in March, and Sept. of 2009. The report then cannot be obtained
by the public until February 2010. Jamie Fairchild advised at a presentation in 2008 that they have vigorous plan spanning a period over the next 10 years. They already have a 21-year lease on much acreage east of Crotch Lake. The Memorandum of Agreement states nothing about FVC trucking in water or removing the contaminated water and trucking it back out. Where then, everyone should be asking, is the water going to come from that is used during the drilling process? More importantly - where will it be dumped into? Our creeks, ponds, steams, lakes, and wetlands are precious components making up the Frontenacs, Highlands and surrounding areas. It breaks my heart every day when I wake up to the realization that so much destruction and devastation can be allowed - and we stakeholders around this area, as taxpayers are actually owners of the Crown Lands with our tax dollars - but are powerless to do anything about it. We are not eco-terrorists, nor active environmentalists - we are eco-conservationists - trying to save our environment and a safe place for the children to raise their families. Open pit mining would look like the destruction taking place on the oil sands. Take a look at the National Geographic pictures - they have a good reason for printing them - and these pictures cannot be denied. When nuclear reactors start having problems - you bet you better be worried. If the fuel rods start heating up - they will erupt causing a nuclear explosion. If nuclear is so safe - why then do uranium spent fuel rods need to be totally encased in water for 7 years to cool down and then encased in sealed air containers for another 3 years before being buried deep underground - which locations have yet to be determined because of the radioactive contamination? As far as medical isotopes are concerned - there are other ways to produce them other than using weapons-grade uranium. As far as for money greedy people and power hungry non-conservationists (like the ones in the US with 20 room homes containing bowling alleys and movie theatres, 10 bedrooms and 7 baths etc.) and people who have no conscience about having every light in their home on and using every appliance at the same time - it's not more energy that is needed - it is having a conscience and being more responsible that is needed; then there would be enough power for everyone. The entire Memorandum of Understanding between the Algonquin Nations and the government can be downloaded from www.ccamu.ca website (Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium) -lower portion of the home page and proven facts of the dangers of exploration and mining of uranium can be downloaded from www.ccnr.org website. Wanda Recoskie
3) DONNA
DILLMAN TO SPEAK AT HALTON ECO-FEST (OAKVILLE) 4) WHY GREEN ENERGY?
5) THE QUESTION
OF SUSTAINABILITY - AN EXAMINATION OF THE MINING INDUSTRY
6) DEMAND
a LEGISLATED BAN for ONTARIO like the one granted British Columbia - A
Rally to Stop Uranium Mining and Exploration 7) LINDA
HARVEY MD: TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PICKERING Thank you for having a public consultation on this very important issue. Perhaps you have pretty much made your minds up already, I don't know. I still think it is worth reviewing some of the things it is critically important for you to be aware of before you make this very important decision. I am a physician licensed to practice medicine in the province of Ontario, and have degrees in Biology and Neurophysiology as well. Thus my training is in the sciences and medicine. Hopefully you are aware of new data coming out of Germany, as well as England and the USA, which links childhood leukemia with proximity of residence to a nuclear power plant. One such study, known as the KiKK study (1,2), (from the German 'Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants') was commissioned by the German government ostensibly to disprove the claim that there was an excess of childhood cancer near nuclear power plants. It was a meticulously designed case-control study ( a stronger and more definitive design than the more common ecologic study or 'survey' of disease incidence in a general population), and examined data from around all 16 of Germany's nuclear power reactors. It found an unequivocal link between distance of residence from a reactor and likelihood of leukemia in children under 5. The closer the child lived to the plant, the more likelihood of the child having leukemia. This relationship existed out to a distance of 50 km. from the reactor. This result was, needless to say, unexpected. Data from this study were reviewed by an independent panel of 12 experts, including epidemiologists, pediatricians, statisticians and physicists. The study was found to be scientifically impeccable. This is not the only such study, although it is perhaps the strongest one. It was undertaken after two other German studies, less refined in their design, also found positive correlations between childhood leukemia and proximity to a nuclear power plant (3,4). There have been similar studies done in Great Britain, notably by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). The COMARE studies antedate the KiKK study, and are ecologic in design, and therefore inherently less powerful. Nonetheless, they found some significant increases in childhood cancer and leukemia near nuclear installations, including power plants, reprocessing plants, enrichment facilities and weapons plants (5). It was these studies which in part inspired the German studies. The Americans have done their own work. There have been documented increases in childhood leukemia and cancer around US nuclear facilities (6,7,8) and after start up of new facilities. No one study by itself, however well designed, would be enough to govern a decision on this issue, but their mounting numbers and their consistency, even when they do not reach statistical significance, should be cause for alarm. I will remind you that it was German data on thalidomide which caused this drug to be removed from the market before any more tragedies could occur. Are there any studies in Canada? Yes, there are. Two studies were commissioned by the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) in 1989 and 1991 (9,10) following concerns about findings in Great Britain. They are both ecologic studies, as opposed to the more powerful case-control type of study, and looked at childhood leukemia at ages 0-4 and 0-14 respectively, within 25 km of Chalk River, Port Hope, Elliot Lake and Pickering and Bruce Nuclear Plants. They found elevated rates at all sites except Chalk River, although not reaching statistical significance. Another 1991 study (11) specifically of the Pickering region found statistically significant increases in central nervous system defects and Down's syndrome correlating with airborne tritium releases. The Radiation and Health in Durham Region study of 2007 (12), an update of a similar 1996 study, examined cancer and leukemia in adults and children. It was and ecologic study, and lumped data not by distance from a nuclear facility, but by municipal boundaries. Despite these methodological shortcomings, there were some positive findings. The study is a comprehensive one, and time constraints do not allow me to do it full justice. Suffice it to say that there are results in all of the Canadian studies which demand a more carefully designed and focused research approach. I hope members of Council will familiarize themselves with this work. I have given you references. I recommend that you have someone knowledgeable in epidemiology and statistics, who is not connected to the nuclear industry, review this material and prepare a commentary for you. The matter is too important to take lightly. You do not need to make your decision tonight; you need to make it when you are fully prepared, and comfortable that you can make a sound one. There are some other things I would like to mention in passing: Cancer, including leukemia, is not the only effect of low level radiation exposure on humans. Low level radiation has been implicated in cardiovascular disease, immune system dysfunction including autoimmune disorders and decreased resistance to disease, accelerated aging, genetic damage passing down through generations, even diabetes and obesity (13). Very few studies on any of these things have been done in Canada. The population of Pickering is quite large, and you have an operating plant here already. It would be prudent and responsible to do these studies before committing your population to more of something which may be harmful. Operating your plant requires uranium. This necessitates mining uranium, an ecologically devastating undertaking. This happens in somebody's back yard, if not yours. There is currently no satisfactory long term storage method for spent fuel rods. These are highly dangerous, and subject to mishaps and sabotage. Do you want them around? Do you think any community wants them? The possibility of a catastrophe, such as happened at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, while very small, is not zero. It will not be zero until the reactor has finished operating and the fuel rods have cooled enough that they are safe. Finally, nuclear power is most certainly not green house gas-free. It takes enormous amounts of fossil fuel to mine uranium, crush rock to extract it, ship it from northern Saskatchewan to Blind River to Port Hope to Kentucky and back for all the different stages of processing, to manufacture, mix and pour concrete for the reactor building, to build and maintain storage casks for the spent rods, decommission mines, etc. It can take a third or more of the energy you ever get back from the plant, and many of these steps require non-electrical energy. There are alternatives, consider them. Of all the reasons not to use nuclear power, the most compelling has to do with our health, and our children's health. References: 1) Spix C., Schmiedel S., Kaatsch P., Schulze-Rath R., Blettner M. "Case-Control Study on Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants in Germany 1980-2003." Eur. Journal of Cancer 2008; 44:275-284 2) Kaatsch P., Spix C., Schulze-Rath R., Schmiedel S., Blettner M. "Leukemia in Young Children Living in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants." Int. J. Cancer 2008; 1220: 721-26 3) Kaatsch P., Kaletsch U., Meinert R., Michaelis J. "An Extended Study on Childhood Malignancies in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants." Cancer Causes Control 1998; 9: 529-33 4) Hofmann W., Terschueren C., Richardson D. B., "Childhood leukemia in the Vicinity of the Geesthacht Nuclear Establishments near Hamburg, Germany." Environmental Health Perspectives 2007; 115: 947-52 5) Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), 10th Report, "The Incidence of Childhood Cancer around Nuclear Installations in Great Britain." 2005 6) Baker, PJ and CG Hoel "Meta-analysis of Standardized Incidence and Mortality Rates of Childhood Leukemia in proximity to Nuclear Facilities." Eur. J. Cancer Care 16:355, 2007 7) Mangano, J. "Short Latency between Radiation Exposure from Nuclear Plants and Cancer in young Children." Internat. J Health Services 36:113, 2007 8) Mangano, J. "Excess Infant Mortality after Nuclear Plant Start-up in Rural Mississippi." Internat. J. Health Services 38: 277-291, 2008 9) Clarke E., McLaughlin J., Anderson T. "Childhood Leukemia Around Canadian Nuclear Facilities" - Phase 1 and 2. Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research foundation, University of British Columbia. A report prepared for the Atomic Energy Control Board Ottawa, Canada. May 1989 (Phase 1), June 1991 (Phase 2) 10) Johnson K., Rouleau J. "Tritium Releases from the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and Birth Defects and Infant Mortality in Nearby Communities 1971-88." (AECB Project No. 7.156.1). Birth Defects and Poisonings Section, Diseases of Infants and Children Division, Bureau of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, Health Protection Branch, Health and Welfare Canada. A research report prepared for the Atomic Energy Control Board Ottawa, Canada. Oct. 1991 11) Durham Region Health Department (2007), Radiation and Health in Durham Region 2007. Whitby, Ontario: The Regional Municipality of Durham 12) BEIR VII Phase 2. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006, 8) JUDGES THROWS
OUT CHARGES AGAINST SIX PROTESTING SANTAS A judge has tossed out obstructing police charges against
six people who dressed up as Santa and his elves to deliver lumps of coal
to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Full article at: http://www.northernnews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1514881 9) CITIZENS
PROTEST AGAINST URANIUM MINING: NORTH SHORE From: 10) BC BANS URANIUM AND THORIUM EXPLORATION PERMITS The Northern Miner, Monday, March 16, 2009 Vancouver - The prospect of uranium mining in B.C. received a final blow as the provincial government moved to prohibit the chief mine inspector from issuing uranium and thorium exploration and development permits. "This is a far as we need to go," the B.C. minister of state for mining Gordon Hogg says in respect to banning the development of uranium and thorium projects in the province and matching mining and exploration regulations with its no-nuclear public policy. article at: http://www.northernminer.com/issues/ISArticle.aspid=97432&issue= 11) No
Nuke News France's nuke power poster child has a money melt-down The myth of a successful nuclear power industry in France has melted into financial chaos. With it dies the corporate-hyped poster child for a "nuclear renaissance" of new reactor construction that is drowning in red ink and radioactive waste. Areva, France's nationally-owned corporate atomic façade, has plunged into a deep financial crisis led by a devastating shortage of cash.
The Battle of Chernobyl Watch it free on you-tube: 5 min. doc of Chernobyl by Greenpeace Uranium mine water leak concerning, govt says Startling Revelations about Three Mile Island Disaster
Raise Doubts Over Nuke Safety Why Green Energy? Renewable Solutions with Dr. David Suzuki
& Dr. Hermann Scheer Health threat of Perry nuclear power plant should be studied For more on what needs to be done to truly make the Green Energy Act the best it can be, see our short background paper at www.cleanairalliance.org/gea. Please pass this message on to your friends. Thank you.
12) COALITION FOR A CLEAN GREEN SASKATCHEWAN, MEDIA RELEASE, April 3, 2009 CITIZENS GROUPS QUESTION LEGITIMACY OF URANIUM PANEL REPORT Saskatoon: The Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan(CCGS), made up of citizens in rural and urban Saskatchewan who promote a non nuclear future for our province, is critical of the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) report released today. The UDP is not neutral: it is a nuclear industry panel appointed by a pro-nuclear government. Several members have been employed by the nuclear industry, three are CEOs of nuclear companies. Their recommendations are driven by their agenda to manufacture consent. We need to restore public trust before going any further. According to Bruce Power's own survey there is near unanimous (95%) support for renewable energy in Saskatchewan. Why then was $2.5 million spent to study nuclear options, and no money allocated to study and plan a clean energy future based on conservation, efficiency, cogeneration, solar, wind, small-scale hydro, biomass and geothermal? The Coalition believes nuclear waste storage is at the core of the industry's intentions for Saskatchewan. Uranium development is simply the "Trojan Horse" being used to bring it to our doorstep. The federal agency responsible for nuclear waste storage in Canada has been looking at Saskatchewan as a potential site for nuclear waste dumping. Nuclear waste is piling up all around the world, but long-term storage has no willing takers. If we end up with radioactive wastes generated by unnecessary atomic reactors or uranium refineries, there will be great pressure put upon us to also store hundreds of thousands of tonnes of highly dangerous substances from elsewhere - waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years. What kind of legacy is that to leave to our grandchildren and their grandchildren? The Coalition urges the provincial government to engage with citizens in an open, honest and transparent process to examine Saskatchewan's energy future rather than to impose a rushed public consultation process designed by, and for, the nuclear industry. In the meantime we urge communities threatened with the spectre of a nuclear reactor or uranium refinery near their homes to organize, seek legal advice, and legally petition their municipal councils to avoid or prevent hasty compliance with the agendas of corporate interests. Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan http://www.cleangreensask.ca/ The final report from the Uranium Development Partnership
is available at 13) PUBLIC
CONSULTATION TO FOLLOW RELEASE OF URANIUM DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP REPORT,
Enterprise and Innovation Minister Lyle Stewart and Crown Corporations Minister Ken Cheveldayoff today officially received and released the report of the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) on the future of the uranium industry in the province. The report, Capturing the Full Potential of the Uranium Value Chain in Saskatchewan, contains 20 recommendations on further development of Saskatchewan's uranium resources focused on further exploration and mining, power generation and research and development. "I want to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Florizone
and all members of the UDP for all Led by Dr. Richard Florizone, a nuclear physicist and Vice President of Finance at the University of Saskatchewan, the UDP committee included strong representation from communities and organizations across Saskatchewan including the University of Regina, the University of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 2067, First Nations, the environmental community and representatives from Canada's nuclear industry. In accepting the report, Minister Stewart said that international concern over climate change is driving world-wide interest in clean energy generation options creating a window of opportunity for Saskatchewan to pursue valued-added development of its uranium industry. "The UDP has given the province a lot to think about," Stewart said. "The next step is to engage Saskatchewan citizens in a public consultation process that will facilitate thoughtful discussion and consideration about the 20 recommendations contained in the UDP Report." "Our Province has benefited from its rich uranium
resources for many years, and I am pleased to see the Uranium Development
Partnership has concluded there are opportunities to add value to Saskatchewan's
uranium," Cheveldayoff said. "I look forward to hearing what
the Saskatchewan people have to say about the opportunities Stewart said the public consultation process will start
immediately and will feature several elements including: The UDP report calculates that acting on its high priority recommendations could increase in Saskatchewan's Gross Domestic Product by an estimated $50 billion to $55 billion and could create 6,500 construction and 5,500 long-term jobs. "I can assure you that no decisions have been made," Stewart said. "The input received will be considered by the provincial government as part of the decision making process. As such, I encourage all citizens to get informed and get involved."
|