Adopted without debate in the National Assembly, Province of Quebec.
(Quebec has been smarter than the rest of Canadian Governments on various important issues.)
CONTENTS
(1) CANADA GENERATES FAR MORE NUCLEAR WASTE THAN ANY OTHER OECD NATION ON A PER CAPITA BASIS (1998 data).
(2) THE NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION SEARCHING FOR A DISPOSAL SITE (GULLIBLE PEOPLE).
(3) OCTOBER 30 2008, QUEBEC NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SAYS “YOU WON’T BE DUMPING YOUR NUCLEAR WASTE IN QUEBEC”.
(4) NUCLEAR REACTORS IN THE TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENTS
=====================
(1) CANADA GENERATES FAR MORE NUCLEAR WASTE THAN ANY OTHER OECD NATION ON A PER CAPITA BASIS (1998 data).
Cripes! Sometimes I wish I didn’t look these things up. I had no idea that we are #1. http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htdocs/indicators/13nucl.htm
Canada vs the OECD: An Environmental Comparison WASTE:
Nuclear Waste
Canada uses nuclear reactors to produce approximately 12% of this country’s energy. An inevitable byproduct of the process is spent fuel, the most common form of nuclear waste. Radioactive waste is also generated by uranium mining and milling, fuel enrichment, decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear facilities and other activities using isotopes, such as scientific research.18
Nuclear waste is a major threat to human health and the environment, and poses a difficult disposal problem. As of 1992, Canada had accumulated over 200 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings from uranium mining, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and 900,000 bundles of nuclear fuel wastes.19
The dilemma about how to properly dispose of nuclear waste continues to plague Canada’s nuclear industry. According to Environment Canada, “true walkaway disposal methods are unlikely to be possible, given the long time periods (a minimum of 250,000 years) for which the longer-lived radionuclides would have to be isolated from the soil, air, and water.”20
Canada’s OECD Ranking Canada generates far more nuclear waste than any other OECD nation on a per capita basis, placing us 28th out of 28. Canada generates 49.3 kg of nuclear waste per 1000 inhabitants.
The total amount of nuclear waste generated in Canada in 1998 was 1,510 tonnes, almost seven times the OECD average, and second only to the United States.
Twelve OECD nations reported zero nuclear waste: Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Turkey.
Trend
Annual production of nuclear waste in Canada grew 76% between 1982 and 1998. Although the United States currently generates a greater total of nuclear waste, Canada is expected to surpass the U.S. in terms of total nuclear waste by the year 2010.21
======================
(2) THE NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION SEARCHING FOR A DISPOSAL SITE (GULLIBLE PEOPLE).
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was established in 2002 by Ontario Power Generation Inc., Hydro-Québec and New Brunswick Power Corporation in accordance with the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NFWA) to assume responsibility for the long-term management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel.
The NWMO is holding meetings in various Canadian locations. They are in VERY bad need of a place to get rid of the accumulating piles of radioactive waste. They were in Saskatchewan about a month ago. Left to themselves, the people who generate the radioactive waste are great salespeople for its “harmless” disposal in your jurisdiction. All that empty space in Saskatchewan is attractive as a disposal site. There are industry and Government officials here who fully support that we should become the repository for radioactive waste. We’re “open for business”! (What’s the title of Michael Moore’s book – – (——) White Men!)
Many thanks for the relentless work of the well-informed Saskatchewanians who show up year-after-ear to defend against the propaganda.
Google “Yucca Mountain” to obtain an idea of the difficulty in the U.S. for disposal of its nuclear waste. There has been a tendency to site health-destroying nuclear activity on the lands of indigenous populations. In past emails we have looked at court challenges by native Americans and environmental groups in the U.S..
=================================
(3) OCTOBER 30 2008, QUEBEC NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SAYS “YOU WON’T BE DUMPING YOUR NUCLEAR WASTE IN QUEBEC”.
Many thanks to Wanda (Alberta) who writes:
This may be a simple first step that we could get the provincial government to agree to: that Alberta not accept burial of nuclear wastes from outside of the province within the province.
It is so far from our current reality – of not even having any waste, and easy to agree to – because why would we want to accept out of province waste?
—– Original Message —–
From: Gordon Edwards
Sent: Thursday, October 30
Subject: Quebec National Assembly calls for a prohibition against nuclear waste imports
See the unofficial English translation below:
Les travaux parlementaires
D?bats de Assembl?e nationale?
Le jeudi 30 octobre 2008, 15 h 25
Le Vice-Pr?sident (M. Picard):?M. le d?put? de Vachon.
M. Bouchard:?M. le Pr?sident, je demande le consentement de?cette Chambre pour pr?senter, conjointement avec la ministre des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune et le d?put? de Marguerite-D’Youville, la motion suivante:
?Que l’Assembl?e nationale demande au gouvernement d’interdire l’enfouissement sur le territoire du Qu?bec de d?chets et de combustibles irradi?s en provenance de l’ext?rieur du Qu?bec.?
Le Vice-Pr?sident (M. Picard):?Merci, M. le d?put?. Est-ce qu’il y a consentement pour d?battre de cette motion?
M. Pelletier (Chapleau):?Il y a consentement pour qu’elle soit adopt?e sans d?bat.
Le Vice-Pr?sident (M. Picard):?Cette motion est-elle adopt?e sans d?bat?
Des voix:?Adopt?.
——————
Unofficial English Translation: Parliamentary Proceedings
38th Legislature, First Session (commenced May 8 2007)
Debates of the National Assembly
Thursday, October 30, 2008, 3:25 p.m. (unedited)
Vice-President (M. Picard): I recognize the member from Vachon.
M. Bouchard: Mister Speaker, I ask for the consent of this Chamber to present the following motion, jointly with the Minister of Natural Resources and Wildlife and the member from Marguerite-D’Youville:
That the National Assembly ask the government to forbid the burial on Quebec territory of nuclear wastes and/or irradiated nuclear fuel coming from outside Quebec.
Vice-President (M. Picard): Thank you. Is there consent to debate this motion?
M. Pelletier (Chapleau): There is consent that the motion be adopted without debate.
Vice-President (M. Picard): Is the motion then adopted without debate?
Voices: Adopted.
=========================
(4) NUCLEAR REACTORS IN THE TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENTS
Thanks to Andrew Nikiforuk’s new book, “Tar Sands, Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent”:
– “The rapid depletion of natural gas in the tar sands is driving Canada’s so-called nuclear renaissance. Canada may well become the first nation to use nuclear energy not to retire fossil fuels but to accelerate their exploitation. ”
The destruction of the third largest watershed in the world (the Athabasca), the destruction of boreal forest projected to be the size of the state of Florida in Alberta, the rapid depletion of energy supplies for Canadians, etc. … adds to the profits of a few large corporations. Most of the energy (and virtual water embedded in the energy) is headed straight south.
“The reality is that at least one supertanker must arrive at a U.S. port every four hours,” notes Swedish energy expert Kjell Aleklett. “Any interruption in this pattern is a threat to the American economy.” This crippling addiction has increasingly become an unsustainable wealth drainer.
In 2000, the United States imported $200 billion worth of oil, thereby enriching many of the powers that seek to undermine the country. By 2008, it was paying out a record $440 billion annually for its oil.” (p. 30).
More on the Tar Sands later. It is important to understand the dynamics, the players, and the beneficiaries in the energy drama. Be clear on “For whom” the nuclear reactors would be.