Dear Mayor Boshcoff and city councillors,
I was heartened last week to hear that City Council had passed a motion stating its opposition to the transportation of high-level nuclear waste, by truck and rail, through or near the city of Thunder Bay.
The waste, of course, would be intended for deposit in the deep geological repository (DGR) that is proposed for Ignace. I want to express my gratitude especially to the seven councillors who voted in favour of the motion and for having the foresight and wisdom to do so. The weight of the self-serving propagandizing by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWNO) for the DGR and for the transport of nuclear wastes long distances from their source is heavy, indeed, and requires courage and determination to recognize and withstand.
I am also grateful for the work of Environment North of which I am a member. It has consistently opposed the location of a DGR at Ignace and has worked tirelessly to educate the public and elected officials like you about why burying and transporting high level nuclear waste is a bad, indeed ludicrous, idea.
Environment North has wisely and with qualification advocated that high level nuclear wastes be stored where they are produced in a manner that is safest based on current technology until such time as better, more safer ways of storage and/or disposal are developed. Following this note is the list of rationales that Environment North has developed in support of this approach. I expect you are familiar with the list, but I commend it to you as a reminder of the serious risks that the NWMO’s proposals represent.
NWMO does not miss an opportunity to pad its transparent propagandizing in favour of a DGR and the transport of high-level nuclear wastes. It’s use of the example of Finland’s new nuclear waste repository is one such example. Finland’s repository is new bearing no historical precedent or proven track record. For these reasons it cannot be considered as qualified support for a DGR in Ignace.
Why is our region being touted as a site for burying nuclear waste in the first place? Northern Ontario does not rely on nuclear-generated power and is far removed from any sites of nuclear power generation. Indeed, what kind of strange calculus has the nuclear power industry used in proposing that our region be a guinea pig for what is surely a very risky and dangerous experiment? The best and most common-sense approach, as Environment North is advocating, is to store high-level nuclear wastes where they are generated until safe ways of storage and/or disposal are developed.
As councillors you are charged with the solemn responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interests of the citizens of Thunder Bay and the surrounding natural environment – decisions that are independently made free of the kind of propaganda that the NWMO proffers. I therefore call on you to continuously stand behind the wise and common-sense decision you made last week.
Thank you for giving this matter your serious attention.
Gary Kenny
Reasons why Environment North opposes the transport of nuclear wastes through Thunder Bay
*A significant number of your constituents have voiced their opposition to having nuclear waste transported through Thunder Bay;
*The NWMO has failed to publicly address the hazards and risks associated with the transportation of nuclear fuel waste.
*The few instances of highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste being transported in Canada are not comparable to the frequency and volume of transportation required to move all of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste to a single location.
*Low levels of gamma radiation exposure will result from the transport containers carrying the used nuclear fuel, which will have a cumulative effect for members of the public residing or working at locations near the transportation routes.
*In severe transportation accidents, the containers’ radiation shielding could be damaged, resulting in higher radiation levels around the damaged container and possibly the release of some portion of container contents, which would cause contamination of the surface and adjacent waterways.
*It is not fair that Thunder Bay residents have not been consulted in the NWMO site selection decision when we could be significantly impacted by the transportation of highly radioactive nuclear waste through our city on a frequent basis for 50 years.
*While municipalities avoid interfering with other municipalities, the Twp. of Ignace, with its decision in favour of the nuclear industry’s proposed project, necessarily interferes with the City of Thunder Bay which is on the transportation route.
