Mark Holland drops Environmental Bombshell on the west.

[Dixie Cup]

Okay. I've listened to some of the interview I think we are talking about. I DO support the idea of limiting the growth of the oilsands. I do the oilsands as an environmental nightmare, and talk of building nuclear power stations to fuel the area scare me even more. I am concerned about where the profits of the oilsands are actually going...much of it south of the border. I am concerned that the average albertan...the average canadian will pay in the long run so oil company folks can get filthy rich. I very much like the idea of limited growth in the oil sands. I want to see the madness that is going on in alberta right now come to an end. The economy as it is is nuts, and although benefits some, is brutal to the average joe.

I don't know what interview you speak of (I haven't heard about one) but I agree with you to some degree. The Alberta Gov't has not stepped up to the plate about the oilsands issue and has allowed the development to exceed what can be currently sustainable. I'm am sincerely hopeful that the current government can hold the reins of development. However, I'm afraid it's probably too little too late, especially with the billions of dollars in upgraders etc., that have already been planned, some of which have already started. Any further plans to expand need to be delayed until we can figure out what's best for the province, economically and environmentally. It will take someone with extreme courage and foresight to get things in hand and I don't know if we have anyone like that in Alberta politics today. Certainly not the Provincial Liberals or NDP and the Conservatives have let us down so far. The new leader???? Still don't know but I'm not so sure of him either.

At the end of the day, it's the people of Alberta who must decide how and what they want for the future and not anyone else since we'll have to live (and die) by whatever decisions are made. Believe me, if we screw it up, the ROC will NEVER let us forget it and in more ways than one!:happy11:

JMO

 

[Tonington]

talk of building nuclear power stations to fuel the area scare me even more

I'm not scared at all by nuclear power. They're talking about sequestering carbon dioxide underground, that's great. I don't have a problem with sealing nuclear waste either, in fact some day we might need some spare energy, and it would be better if we could get at it, but judging on NRCan, I think they plan to burry it in corrosion-resistant containers in the stable Canadian shield . France is a world leader in nuclear energy, I believe they process the majority of the waste so it may be used again and I think 70% of their power generation is nuclear.

We have a glut of uranium in Canada, why not use it to produce electricity? I think the CANDU reactors have been operting safely for a while now and are one of the worlds safest nuclear designs.

 

[snfu73]

I believe the half life of the nuclear waste generated by a nuclear power plant is something like 20,000 years. Can we gaurantee that it can be safetly stored for that amount of time? I know CANDU reactors have a good reputation, and that is comforting, but I am still not convinced we have an excellent way to deal with the waste generated by nuclear power plants.

 

[Tonington]

Well, it depends which type of waste we're talking about. The low level waste, stuff like containment parts, pipes, radiation suits, medical waste will after 50 years have degraded enough to be regular refuse. High level waste like the left-over fuel rods and cores can have half-lifes in excess of 100,000 years.

Heres what NRCanada was proposing in 1998, I believe they have a new plan coming out soon
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media/archives/newsreleases/1998/199894c_e.htm

 

[snfu73]

Thanks for that link. Interesting reading...but, it doesn't instill me with a new sense of acceptance. If anything, it points out just how dangerous those fuel rods really are. In the end, it also sounds awfully expensive...but I don't know costs of other resources, so have nothing to compare it to. I fear any accidents that could happen, because, the affects can be very severe, very quickly, for a large number of people...and the effects can be long lasting. The fact that CANDU reactors have proven so far to be so safe is good...but...anything can happen.

 

[Zzarchov]

I believe the half life of the nuclear waste generated by a nuclear power plant is something like 20,000 years. Can we gaurantee that it can be safetly stored for that amount of time? I know CANDU reactors have a good reputation, and that is comforting, but I am still not convinced we have an excellent way to deal with the waste generated by nuclear power plants.

You know what the half life on poisonous base element is? Eternal, it doesn't decay.


Arsenic thrown around NEVER goes away, it just causes constant death and birth defects.


So you can use "clean" power and wind up with some 400 tonnes of arsenic and other deadly elements or you can half a quarter tonne of nuclear waste.

Nuclear power is vastly cleaner than Solar Electricity.

 

[snfu73]

Well, there ya go...ya learn something new everyday.

Anyway...so, where is this arsenic coming from? What do you mean? Could you elaborate on that? How does solar electricity generate arsenic? Not saying you are wrong or right...just looking for more information.

 

[L Gilbert]

Okay. I've listened to some of the interview I think we are talking about. I DO support the idea of limiting the growth of the oilsands. I do the oilsands as an environmental nightmare, and talk of building nuclear power stations to fuel the area scare me even more. I am concerned about where the profits of the oilsands are actually going...much of it south of the border. I am concerned that the average albertan...the average canadian will pay in the long run so oil company folks can get filthy rich. I very much like the idea of limited growth in the oil sands. I want to see the madness that is going on in alberta right now come to an end. The economy as it is is nuts, and although benefits some, is brutal to the average joe.

Brutal to the average Joe? You must be some sort of socialist or something. Masses of people move to the oil sands area to get work. Yeah that sounds brutal but that's work for you. Better to sit back in front of the tv in Moosejaw on welfare.
Capitalism is capitalism. Resources generate money. Simple as that. Having people sitting around collecting off the gov't does not generate anything worth anything. It only makes the gov't richer and that's not good because it tends to grow which in turn isn't good. Gov't should just shut up, collect its taxes, and then sit down again..

 

[L Gilbert]

I'm not scared at all by nuclear power. They're talking about sequestering carbon dioxide underground, that's great. I don't have a problem with sealing nuclear waste either, in fact some day we might need some spare energy, and it would be better if we could get at it, but judging on NRCan, I think they plan to burry it in corrosion-resistant containers in the stable Canadian shield . France is a world leader in nuclear energy, I believe they process the majority of the waste so it may be used again and I think 70% of their power generation is nuclear.

We have a glut of uranium in Canada, why not use it to produce electricity? I think the CANDU reactors have been operting safely for a while now and are one of the worlds safest nuclear designs.

I;ll go along with that.

 

[L Gilbert]

Thanks for that link. Interesting reading...but, it doesn't instill me with a new sense of acceptance. If anything, it points out just how dangerous those fuel rods really are. In the end, it also sounds awfully expensive...but I don't know costs of other resources, so have nothing to compare it to. I fear any accidents that could happen, because, the affects can be very severe, very quickly, for a large number of people...and the effects can be long lasting. The fact that CANDU reactors have proven so far to be so safe is good...but...anything can happen.

rofl
Well, you better stay in bed tomorrow in case something happens.
Your vehicle could lose a bolt tomorrow and cause your steering to quit, better not go out.
A meteor might hit the planet tomorrow and wipe out 90% of life. Better stop the planet in its tracks just in case.

 

[snfu73]

rofl
Well, you better stay in bed tomorrow in case something happens.
Your vehicle could lose a bolt tomorrow and cause your steering to quit, better not go out.
A meteor might hit the planet tomorrow and wipe out 90% of life. Better stop the planet in its tracks just in case.

So, we shouldn't try to prevent possible accidents? That's kinda why I get my vehicle checked out on occasion, to try and PREVENT something like that happening. Besides, even if it did happen, the effects would be pretty minimal compared to an accident involving nuclear waste. And...um...scientists have been studying the problem of an astroid hitting the earth for years, and trying to come up with solutions...soooo....we shouldn't do this with our energy sources? Seems to me it's a good idea to weigh out the pros and cons and act responsibly. I don't feel that nuclear energy...though clean and efficient on one hand...is responsible in the long term.

So, I take it you never lock your doors? You never put on your seat belt? You never take any steps towards protecting yourself against what may happen? You don't have insurance of any kind? Are you suggesting we shouldn't look at the "what if's", especially if the what if's could be disasterous to a large number of people for a great amount of time? That's ridiculous!

 

[Tonington]

I'm confused about what type of incident you're worried about, an accident in a reactor, or an accident with waste leaking, or maybe both?

 

[L Gilbert]

So, we shouldn't try to prevent possible accidents? That's kinda why I get my vehicle checked out on occasion, to try and PREVENT something like that happening. Besides, even if it did happen, the effects would be pretty minimal compared to an accident involving nuclear waste. And...um...scientists have been studying the problem of an astroid hitting the earth for years, and trying to come up with solutions...soooo....we shouldn't do this with our energy sources? Seems to me it's a good idea to weigh out the pros and cons and act responsibly. I don't feel that nuclear energy...though clean and efficient on one hand...is responsible in the long term.

So, I take it you never lock your doors? You never put on your seat belt? You never take any steps towards protecting yourself against what may happen? You don't have insurance of any kind? Are you suggesting we shouldn't look at the "what if's", especially if the what if's could be disasterous to a large number of people for a great amount of time? That's ridiculous!

rofl
Now that you have a head fulla steam, I gotta tell you I was being sarcastic. You're funny.
BTW, I live in an area where I can leave my keys in the ignition when I go shopping or paying bills, I am not even sure if I could find a key to a door in my house, I have vehicle insurance, home insurance, and life insurance, I put my seatbelt on wherever I think there may be a cop, and I have prepared for what I think could be disasters around here.
Nuclear power is quite inexpensive and quite efficient and if we are to keep upping the population we will need more and more power. Hydroelectric generation is extremely costly and takes a lot of time to develop. Solar is a good one but I'm not sure how to mass produce it, wind is region sensitive. Worse comes to worse we could always upload nuclear waste to the sun if we cannot store it. But we can store it. Somewhere down the road we may actually unstore it because we've developed a use for the waste or figured out a feasible method of fusion.

 

[snfu73]

I'm confused about what type of incident you're worried about, an accident in a reactor, or an accident with waste leaking, or maybe both?

My concern is not so much with the reactors. I do know that CANDU reactors are well known for their safety record. But, I am concerned about radioactive material that is produced by the reactors. I believe that in the short term, methods of storing the waste are relatively effective and safe...but my concern is that the stuff is dangerous for thousands of years into the future...and the unknowns that come with that worry me. I think it is something to be concerned about. I think that because it is a material that can affect a large number of people if anything were to happen, whatever it may be, it is something we should be cautious about.

 

[snfu73]

rofl
Now that you have a head fulla steam, I gotta tell you I was being sarcastic. You're funny.
BTW, I live in an area where I can leave my keys in the ignition when I go shopping or paying bills, I am not even sure if I could find a key to a door in my house, I have vehicle insurance, home insurance, and life insurance, I put my seatbelt on wherever I think there may be a cop, and I have prepared for what I think could be disasters around here.
Nuclear power is quite inexpensive and quite efficient and if we are to keep upping the population we will need more and more power. Hydroelectric generation is extremely costly and takes a lot of time to develop. Solar is a good one but I'm not sure how to mass produce it, wind is region sensitive. Worse comes to worse we could always upload nuclear waste to the sun if we cannot store it. But we can store it. Somewhere down the road we may actually unstore it because we've developed a use for the waste or figured out a feasible method of fusion.

I'm not saying that nuclear power doesn't have good sides. My concern, however, is the bad side, which, to me, is important. I think the risk is great, and I believe strongly that any expansion in the use of nuclear power should not be partaken in lightly.

Yes...this demand in power...ahhhh. I think what we need to do as a society is look at ways to DECREASE our reliance on energy, as opposed to look for new sources of energy to meet higher needs. I think the focus has to go the other way...conserve energy as the way to ease the pressure on production, as opposed to raise production.

 

[Tonington]

Well, uranium occuring naturally in nature is often found in wetland environments, where there is the same potential health threats. Storing it in deep vaults drilled into stable rock after our use is much better than the naturally occuring formations in the wetlands.

 

[L Gilbert]

My concern is not so much with the reactors. I do know that CANDU reactors are well known for their safety record. But, I am concerned about radioactive material that is produced by the reactors. I believe that in the short term, methods of storing the waste are relatively effective and safe...but my concern is that the stuff is dangerous for thousands of years into the future...and the unknowns that come with that worry me. I think it is something to be concerned about. I think that because it is a material that can affect a large number of people if anything were to happen, whatever it may be, it is something we should be cautious about.

The waste I don't think would be much different than what we have raw around here. I have no idea what is under the rest of BC but we have uranium ore in the ground in this area. I haven't started glowing in the dark yet. :roll: Nor do counters go crazy near me.

 

[L Gilbert]

I'm not saying that nuclear power doesn't have good sides. My concern, however, is the bad side, which, to me, is important. I think the risk is great, and I believe strongly that any expansion in the use of nuclear power should not be partaken in lightly.

Yes...this demand in power...ahhhh. I think what we need to do as a society is look at ways to DECREASE our reliance on energy, as opposed to look for new sources of energy to meet higher needs. I think the focus has to go the other way...conserve energy as the way to ease the pressure on production, as opposed to raise production.

Already been there and done that and will do more as I think of it.

 

[snfu73]

Well, there ya go! Now we just need that spirit to catch on...

 

[snfu73]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times] [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times]By Dr. Helen Caldicott, 9/3/2001[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is “clean” and, therefore, the answer to global warming.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]We heard this during the last round of talks in Bonn, and we can expect to hear more of the same as we move closer to the next round of Kyoto talks that are coming up in Marrakesh in October and November.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world’s uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That’s the scale we’re talking about.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from generation to generation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon. Thus far, nuclear power has generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]So, nuclear power adds to global warming, increases the burden of radioactive materials in the ecosphere and threatens to contribute to nuclear proliferation. No doubt the Australian government is keen to assist the uranium industry, but the immorality of its position is unforgivable.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]NOTE: Dr. Helen Caldicott is founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility.[/FONT]


http://healthandenergy.com/nuclear_dangers.htm

I thought this was an interesting article...obviously it is coming from a biased source, but, if it can be taken at face value, and the information is correct, then it presents some reasons for there to be concern of nuclear energy.