[All] Regarding regulatory framework for nuclear

Mon Mar 30 14:28:14 EDT 2015

Allow me to be the first to admit how often I failed to spell the world "too" correctly. 
As I write I hear the concept in my head and type it out like a dictation.  As I read it I'm still thinking it as an audio sound more than written and that screws me up sometimes.  I'm the 2nd generation in my family who knows how to actually read in hundreds of years but it doesn't make it easy to write. My thoughts and ideas audio based because we come from a tradition of oral teachings, not this writing business so I don't see the errors when proof reading because. I'm thinking in audio not visual. It's the way I'm wired. 
 English is a horrible language for that. French is easier. Less double words with the same sounds different meanings. This language isn't even the mother tongue of my people either so my whole life I grew up watching my mom struggle with English with the same issues I have as I write. 
Lulu 

      From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
 To: "all at gren.ca" <all at gren.ca> 
 Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:07 PM
 Subject: Fw: Regarding regulatory framework for nuclear

Just sent this off. 
Lulu 

   ----- Forwarded Message -----
  From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
 To: "consultation at cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca" <consultation at cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca>; "minister.mnr at ontario.ca" <minister.mnr at ontario.ca>; "minister.moe at ontario.ca" <minister.moe at ontario.ca>; "bchiarelli.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <bchiarelli.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "catherinefife at on.ndp.ca" <catherinefife at on.ndp.ca>; "kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca" <stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca>; "minister.ene at ontario.ca" <minister.ene at ontario.ca> 
 Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:04 PM
 Subject: Regarding regulatory framework for nuclear

Hello
I'd like to thank the Canadian Nuclear Safety Council for their work in keeping folks informed on policy advancements and other issues impacting the CNSC. The emails on updates are excellent. Great job there and I want to thank you for that. 
When it came to the safety updates, I contemplated giving input because I understand the roll nuclear has played in helping to wean us away from carbon fuels. Nuclear energy helped keep the lights on and it contributed to a vast array of scientific advances that has provided cancer treatments, technological advancements etc. so I do appreciate those things. 
When I do environmental advocacy work. I do it because I see visions of what the risks are and the ways beyond it.  When I contemplate on nuclear safety protocols, my mind is blank. Fundamentally I have to admit that there is no safe level, no safe way to do this and no safe storage options that will contain these issues. Not yet anyhow. It's not an answer that is coming anytime in my given lifetime at all. The only reasonable way we can advance is to accept that this particular form of energy comes at a cost to high for any planet to pay.  Safer options exist that we can easily pursue that won't come any where near the risks of nuclear. Namely hydro, geothermal, solar or simply more efficient design to conserve the energy we need to support generations to come. 
In my heart, and my head, I know it's simply not worth the risks. To many leaks, to many jellybabies in Iraq from DU laced bullets and bombs, To many jelly babies in the reserves near Uranium mines and tailing ponds that are too costly to fix. To great a national security risk for the bombs it can create. From a nuclear war head to a hand held dirty bomb it is not worth the risk.  
Our groundwater shows global impacts by tritium from global testing and from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Radiation has no boundaries. It cannot simply be contained for billions of years without issues. It's cumulative impacts. Death by a thousand cuts. Mainly cancer.
Threats include climate change with temperatures too warm to cool reactors.   http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/08/warm_seawater_forces_conn_nucl.html

Sometimes Jellyfishhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/01/jellyfish-clog-swedish-nuclear-reactor-shutdown

Sometimes computer geeks gone bad with things like Stuxnethttp://www.timesofisrael.com/stuxnet-virus-attacked-iran-earlier-than-thought/

Then we have issues of leaks at Handfordhttp://rt.com/usa/192300-hanford-nuclear-waste-leak/

New Mexicohttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/12/08/new-mexico-fines-feds-54-million-radiation-leaks-los-alamos-and-wipp-158182
The leaks list can go on and on.  Same to for tailing pond issues. DU issues with military use. 
Fukushima's earthquake and tsunami has left us with a clean up for which we have no technology to decommission. http://www.globalresearch.ca/japan-faces-200-year-wait-for-fukushima-clean-up-technology-to-decommission-melted-down-reactors-does-not-exist/5439572

Cumilative impacts over time with electro magnetic fields, cell phones and a bevy of sources that can move it along from pipelines, tech toys etc. 
There is no logical way I can bend my mind to say it's OK to morally, ethically or scientifically support the use of nuclear energy as an energy supply venture. It is unreasonable, unsafe, costly and frankly, the global community is phasing it out. Long overdue for that one. 
Darlington needs to close. So does Pickering. Bruce was built on top of an earthquake fault line for heaven's sake.  
Time to safely decommission.  Import in hydro from Quebec and Manitoba if need be but we gotta get these things closed. 
We also need to store the waste. I suggest we get it well away from the Great Lakes Watershed.  This needs to be stored in a bedrock system away from major aquifer systems. 
I wish I could point to the best example for storage but even the CNSC found out via the Lake Huron Deep Repository hearing that reality has a horrible sense of irony. The example they picked leaked. 
Ontario needs to thank God we made it this far and end it before we hit a crisis. Enough is enough.  Shut them down. 
Zebra Mussels, algae or rock snot or an oil spill could block or close down the pipes. Lake Ontario might grow so warm in the days ahead it can't cool the reactors. It's not unrealistic anymore. It's the reality of the risks we face in today's world. It's not if but when it will happen. Perhaps US fracking causing a chain of earthquakes could rattle up Pickering or Bruce. Do we really want to wait and see what kind of disaster we could have or will we have the good sense enough to close shop and end the risks while we can?
It's time to end the risks.

Louisette Lanteigne700 Star Flower Ave.Waterloo Ont.N2V 2L2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20150330/0f459907/attachment.html>