Nuclear SafetyLawrence Solomon 29 Mar 2008 FP Comment To most of us, the consequences of a meltdown or some other catastrophic accident at a nuclear reactor are unimaginable. To the companies in the worldwide nuclear industry, and to insurance companies, the consequences are all too imaginable -- they would be wiped out if held responsible for a malfunction that caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. Because reactors were not a commercial proposition, decades ago, the corporate world refused to back nuclear power. read more » Submission by Norman Rubin on behalf of Energy Probe before the Ontario Energy Board's Integrated Power System Plan (IPSP) 18 Jan 2008 Excerpt from Transcript January 18, 2008, EB-2007-0707 IPSP Issues Proceeding, Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Volume 5 Pages 2 – 14 MR.RUBIN: Madam Chair, my comments deal with issues concerning nuclear power, and we offer them to urge this Board to do two things: To stipulate and construe the nuclear issues as broadly as possible; and, in particular, to seek mechanisms to ensure that Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers are protected from the peculiar risks presented by nuclear power. read more » Energy Probe 22 Sep 2006 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Re: Comment on the Proposed Scoping Document (Environmental Assessment Guidelines) for Ontario Power Generation's Proposal for a Deep Geologic Repository for disposal of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes in Kincardine. Dear Mr. Rinker, read more » Energy Probe 22 Sep 2006 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Re: Comment on the Proposed Scoping Document (Environmental Assessment Guidelines) for Ontario Power Generation's Proposal for a Deep Geologic Repository for disposal of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes in Kincardine. Dear Mr. Rinker, read more » Tom Adams 8 Jun 2005 The Toronto Star Letter to the Editor The letter "Getting figures wrong: U.N. monitoring committee sees no rise in number of birth defects or leukemia, only in thyroid cancer" published June 6th, was authored by a nuclear industry employee, Andrew Daley. Unfortunately, Mr. Daley failed to identify his affiliation when attempting to argue that the Chernobyl accident only caused 1,800 extra cancers thus far. read more » Tom Adams 30 May 2005 Globe and Mail
The Globe and Mail The Globe's editorial "How to deal safely with nuclear waste" May 26, is overly hasty in declaring nuclear power's problems solved. read more » Tom Adams 30 May 2005 The Globe and Mail Letter to the Editor The Globe's editorial "How to deal safely with nuclear waste" May 26, is overly hasty in declaring nuclear power's problems solved. read more » Tom Adams 23 Mar 2005 Energy Probe Although the spark that set off that calamity didn't occur in Ontario, we were the hardest hit because our power system had been weakened by neglect. It has only gotten worse in the last two years. The stage is set for another massive blackout, this time made in Ontario. Parts of our power transmission and distribution networks are so dilapidated, a strong wind could knock out some of our electricity lifelines. Tom Adams 20 Jan 2005 Dear Friend: The federal government, and three provincial governments, are about to sink billions more dollars into another attempt to salvage the nuclear industry, the country's least economic energy industry – and its most dangerous. Last month, New Brunswick discovered that its nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau had cracks in its main steam pipe. Cracks in the same piece of equipment at a reactor in Japan just months before had led to an accident that boiled alive four workers and severely scalded seven others. read more » Tom Adams 28 Apr 2004 We have learned that the federal government has quietly begun giving its friends in the nuclear industry new access to the public purse, in order to fund plans for massive nuclear power growth. Norm Rubin 19 Nov 2002 Letter to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission President Linda J. Keen Dear President Keen, We would like to comment on three related regulatory matters of great importance - one past, one present, and one future. We believe that each of these matters involves the recognition of an "obvious truth" concerning nuclear-safety regulation. read more » Lawrence Solomon 6 Nov 2002 National Post Nuclear power is absolutely safe, the nuclear industry is fond of saying. Only scaremongers, the ignorant and fools think otherwise, it maintains. Canadian governments have fallen for the nuclear industry's assurances but, thankfully, Canada's private sector lenders haven't. Knowing that the risk of nuclear contamination is real, and that they could be on the financial hook in the event of radioactive contamination, banks and other private financiers have refused to back nuclear facilities. read more » Tom Adams 6 Sep 2002 September 6, 2002
Linda J. Keen Faxed to: (613) 995-5086 Dear Ms. Keen: Energy Probe is concerned that the deteriorating financial condition of British Energy could have negative safety implications for the operation of the Bruce Nuclear Power Development. read more » Tom Adams 28 Jun 2002 Dear Concerned Citizen: Experts in nuclear weapons recognize that by far the most difficult step in building a bomb like the one that destroyed Hiroshima is acquiring sufficient weapons-grade material. Yet a private Canadian multinational, MDS Nordion, has stockpiled almost two nuclear bombs’ worth of the material near Ottawa. And this company is trying to import enough from the U.S. to more than double its stockpile. read more » Acts of gross negligence by suppliers of nuclear goods and services – the kind of mistakes that might cause nuclear reactors to explode – will no longer be protected from liability under a proposed law that passed first reading in the House of Commons last month. read more » |
|
