A free web site dedicated to the well being of future generations
RESPONSE TO THE UDP REPORT -
NUCLEAR WASTE
Dr. Bill Adamson. Saskatoon.
June 15, 2009
(Dr. Bill Adamson, a retired University of Saskatchewan professor and member of
the Saskatchewan Inter-
Moderator Dan Perrins, Saskatchewan Neighbours!
Where will we put the swimming pool? If a nuclear reactor is placed in Saskatchewan, it will need a swimming pool to cool off the burnt fuel rods for 7 years before they are placed in casks for the next 10 to 100 years.
Will it be in Premier Brad Wall’s backyard? Will you offer your backyard? You would be well paid for it! Will it be in Lloydminster, or North Battleford, or Prince Albert?
This nuclear waste is very toxic and dangerous! If you take a handful and hold it at arm’s length, it would kill you in about one minute from the extreme radioactivity!
When fission occurs, it changes around the electrons, protons, and neutrons so that
211 different lethal chemicals are produced. Their radioactivity is measured by their
half-
disintegrations go on till half the source is gone, then the next half, then the next half, this going on, frequently for hundreds and thousands of years.
The USA, with their 104 swimming pools, have built up a stockpile of 70,000 metric tonnes—enough to cover a football field 20 feet deep. It has spent $13.6 billion dollars over 20 years to build a special deep
rock depository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Because of geologic faults, earthquakes, water migration in rocks, protests of citizens of Nevada, it has proved unsatisfactory. President Obama has suspended the
massive funding, so now the USA is back to square one, starting research all over again.
Canada has accumulated 38,408 metric tonnes of high level nuclear waste—enough to fill five hockey rinks up to the boards. After 60 years scientists still do not know how safely to dispose of it.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) took 15 years of research at a cost of $700 million dollars to develop an elaborate plan for deep rock burial. Part of the research included the Whiteshell deep rock shaft near Pinawa, Manitoba. Recently, it has been shut down and abandoned because of continuous flooding by water, like all the deep rock gold mines across Canada. Geologists have known for years that
there is salt water, under tremendous pressure, under the Pre-
The Scientific Review Panel examined the AECL plan and found 90 problems that needed to be addressed. The Seaborn Commission spent $7 million dollars and eight years holding consultations all across Canada, and found the AECL plan unacceptable.
The Federal government contravened the Seaborn recommendations, and gave the whole problem over to the uranium companies to fix. Whereupon, these corporations formed the Nuclear Waste Management
Organization (NWMO) which has now come up with a deep rock burial plan again.
Now just recall the staggering facts about these nuclear wastes and their longevity in terms of their halflife, for instance:
radium-
plutonium-
thorium-
cesium-
iodine-
uranium-
The UDP Report says very little about these horrendous facts. It makes brief reference to the safety of
workers and citizens, and the dangers of long-
70) It does admit: "Given its radioactivity, used fuel and other high level wastes remain hazardous to
humans and the environment and need to be safely and securely contained and isolated for periods of up
to hundreds and thousands of years."(p.74)
But the writers of this Report take no responsibility for the legacy that will be inevitably left to future
generations of Saskatchewan citizens. I expect that their response will be that the NWMO will take care
of the problem with deep rock burial. No mention of underlying pressurized brine. No mention of the
cracks and fissures in rock following drilling and blasting. No mention of microbes and water migration in
rock. No evidence that the system will work. No acknowledgement that scientists can’t predict reliably
that far into the future.
Moreover, the revised NWMO plan is simply a revised version of the earlier AECL plan, stretched out
over three long stages, encompassing a hundred years or so, with a fancy title added, namely, "Adaptive
Phased Management." No new discoveries since the AECL plan.
Now, the NWMO is undertaking a "citing process" for burying nuclear waste in Saskatchewan. The
workers of Saskatchewan mined and converted the ore into yellowcake, at risk of radiation danger to
themselves. Ontario corporations used it to produce electricity, and profited from that electricity. But
now, Saskatchewan should take back the long term poisonous wastes for good measure. Strange logic!
So, two big questions remain. Whether or not, we will construct a swimming pool? Or, where will we
locate the swimming pool?
Dr. Bill Adamson. Saskatoon.
June 15, 2009
Volume One -
1980-
Originally published in paperback as "Getting
The Shaft, The Radioactive Waste Controversy in Manitoba."
Volume Two -
update: 1984-
The growing prospect of nuclear waste dumps on both sides of the U.S.-
Volume Three -
update:1988-
Federal Environmental Panel concludes that Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s permanent underground nuclear waste burial concept lacks public acceptability.
Volume Four -
update:1998-
Mixed Oxide plutonium transport and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and
nuclear waste issue grinds on
Nuclear Waste Saga
Spring-
A RESPONSE TO THE UDP REPORT -
Dr. Bill Adamson. Saskatoon.
May 27, 2009
It all began with the Manhattan Project in 1945. Scientists learned how to trigger nuclear fission, and
make nuclear bombs. The USA Air Force dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August
of 1945, and massacred 220,500 people.
Then the new slogan became, "Atoms for Peace," with the byword of "Electricity-
But it never happened. There was a rush in the 1970’s and 1980’s to build nuclear
reactors-
Canada, 104 in the USA, 430 worldwide. The costs were enormous. Canada developed a debt of $78
billion, with $28 billion in "stranded debt", for which Ontario households still pay an extra fee on each
monthly electric bill. Without debate in Parliament, the Federal Government has granted a series of
subsidies now totaling $18 billion dollars.
These reactors have never proven economical or self sustaining, always needing federal
subsidies to survive. The myth of cheap electricity was illusory. Moreover, nuclear
fission produces terribly dangerous by-
A handful of such waste held at arms length, will kill a person in one minute. Such wastes must be handled robotically and cooled for seven years in pools of water, then stored in steel casks for many years, remaining deadly dangerous for thousands of years.
The USA has built up a stockpile of 70,000 metric tonnes of used fuel rods, enough to cover a football
field over 21 feet deep. Canada has stored 38,408 tonnes of nuclear waste. After 65 years, scientists still do not know what to do with it, and have not developed a satisfactory disposal system.
The USA has spent $13.6 billion dollars over 20 years to develop a special shaft to house waste in
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Because of geological faults, earthquakes, water migration in rocks, and
protests from Nevada, it has proved to be unsatisfactory. President Obama has now suspended the
massive funding, so for the present the USA is back to square one, and beginning research once more.
Canadian scientists have been working on the vexing problem of nuclear waste for decades. Some six
major research studies have been done, but still no satisfactory solution. (See Appendix)
UDP Nuclear Waste Dr. Bill Adamson, May 27, 2009
Over a period of 15 years, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (AECL) carried out a massive research and
developed an elaborate plan for deep rock burial of nuclear waste. Costing $700 million dollars, it
published "The Environmental Impact Statement on the Geologic Disposal Concept." Part of this
research involved the Whiteshell Research Laboratory and experimental deep rock shaft at Pinawa,
Manitoba. After 15 years the shaft was shut down and the project cancelled because it was constantly
flooding with underground water.
In 1957, the geologists, P. Fritz and S.K. Frappe published a significant book entitled, Saline Waters and
Crystalline Rocks. It revealed that under the Pre-
there is a large layer of salt water under extreme pressure. The continuous flooding of deep rock gold
mines across Canada reveals this phenomena. Deep rock burial is not as dry and safe as it sounds! In
spite of this geological knowledge, the nuclear industry keeps repeating the deep rock burial scheme as a solution. It ignores this geological study and hopes that it will go away!
In 1994, AECL produced its detailed plan and blueprint for deep rock disposal. For several years a
Scientific Review Committee studied the plan and issued a Report indicating that some 90 problems still
needed to be addressed.
Then the Seaborn Commission studied the AECL plan. It interviewed specialists, held consultations
across Canada for eight years, spending $7 million dollars. The Commission found the Plan
Unacceptable.
The Federal Government contravened the Seaborn recommendation to establish an arms-
independent, multi-
whole problem over to the mine owners and vested interests to form a Nuclear Waste Management
Organization (NWMO). It added the quickie principle of "the polluter pays" in order to get the
predicament off the government’s back.
Since then, the NWMO has been carrying out studies, printing booklets, taking surveys, and now
initiating a "process for citing" in a deep rock depository. It has made no new discoveries or
breakthroughs about how to solve this vexing problem. It has added a fancy new phrase to the mix called “Adaptive Phased Management." This is still the original plan, but now broken down into three different stages stretching over long periods of time. It continues the "same old, same old" refrain—"Let’s do deep rock burial." The concept remains unproven because science can not accurately prove long term predictions.
The NWMO has declared Saskatchewan a potential dumping site for nuclear fuel waste that comes
mainly from Ontario, on the grounds that uranium is mined in Saskatchewan. Strange logic!
Radioactive substances disintegrate into sub-
it takes for half of the original amount to disappear; called a ‘half-
radium-
2,300,000 years; iodine-
another half-
these substances will remain deadly for longer than geological history!
In the face of these horrendous facts, the Report of the Uranium Development Partnership (2009) says
very little. It makes bland reference to the safety of workers and members of the public (pp. 4(h), 13(A),
37(h). Later it mentions the dangers of long lived isotopes and fission products (p.70)
Finally, it does admit to the danger: "Given its radioactivity, used fuel and other
high-
The writers of this Report take no responsibility for the legacy for Saskatchewan and Canada which will
be inevitably left to future generations. They assume the NWMO will take care of it with deep rock
burial! No mention of underlying pressurized brine. No mention of the cracks and fissures in rock
following drilling and blasting. No mention of microbes and water migration in rock. No evidence that the
system will really work!
In his book Small Is Beautiful, written some 36 years ago, E. F. Schumacher struggled with the problem
of nuclear wastes and wrote: " No degree of prosperity could justify the accumulation of large amounts
of toxic substance which nobody knows how to make it ‘safe’ and which remain an incalculable danger to
the whole of creation for historical or even geological ages. To do such a thing is a transgression against
life itself, a transgression infinitely more serious than any crime perpetrated by man. The idea that a
civilization could sustain itself on the basis of such a transgression is an ethical, spiritual and
metaphysical monstrosity. It means conducting the economic affairs of man as if people did not matter
at all." (pp.120-
The UDP Report is very unscientific ! It should be condemned for all the facts and realities that have
been omitted and ignored. It is simply a lop-
uranium technology to Saskatchewan citizens. We cannot allow such a dangerous, and unforgiving
science to be foisted on our people, with the construction of nuclear reactors, and the accompanying
accumulation of such deadly high level nuclear wastes.
Dr. Bill Adamson,
Saskatoon, SK
May 27, 2009
-
APPENDIX 1 NUCLEAR REPORTS
1976 The Flowers Report -
UK Royal Commission on the Environment
• warned of weapons proliferation concerns
• unresolved problems of nuclear waste management
• nuclear raises issues of unusual range and difficulty which are political and ethical, as well a
technical in character.
1977 Hare Report -
concept has to be "validated."
1978 Porter Commission Report -
Electric Planning.
• recommended a moratorium on nuclear power unless a safe method of waste storage for
millennia could be demonstrated.
• opposed centralized storage because it presupposed future reprocessing
• no scientific proof geologic disposal is adequate for future generations.
• "Governments must recognize that decisions about nuclear power are fundamentally political
in the widest sense of the word; they relate to the quality of life and quality of the
environment; they cannot be left to the utility alone." (p.xviii)
1980 Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs -
(1) The Safety of Ontario’s Nuclear Reactors
(2) The Management of Nuclear Fuel Waste
(3) The Mining, Milling, and Refining of Uranium in Ontario
UDP Nuclear Waste Dr. Bill Adamson, May 27, 2009
1987 The Brundtland Report -
Commission on Environmental Development: Our Common Future," (Oxford University Press,
1987)
1998 Seaborn Panel Report, by the Seaborn Environmental Assessment Panel.
• found that geologic disposal should be studied further.
• should not now be accepted as Canada’s policy
• not publicly acceptable, and safety concept is not established.