Home Eco Burying radioactive nuclear waste poses enormous risks

Burying radioactive nuclear waste poses enormous risks

0
turtle-photo

By David Suzuki

As the consequences of burning dirty, climate-altering fossil fuels hit harder by the day, many are seizing on nuclear power as a “clean” energy alternative. But how clean is it?

Although it may not produce the emissions that burning fossil fuels does, nuclear power presents many other problems. Mining, processing and transporting uranium to fuel reactors creates toxic pollution and destroys ecosystems, and reactors increase risks of nuclear weapons proliferation and radioactive contamination. Disposing of the highly radioactive waste is also challenging.

The people living in Ignace and South Bruce, Ontario, are learning about the potential dangers firsthand. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization, a not-for-profit corporation representing nuclear power companies, has identified those communities as potential sites for disposing of six million bundles of highly radioactive waste in a “deep geological repository.” The federal government has agreed to the organization’s plans.

It’s an all-too-common story: environmentally damaging projects foisted on communities that need the money such projects promise.

In this case, the NWMO has already paid Indigenous and municipal governments large sums to accept its plans — ignoring communities that will also be affected along transportation routes or downstream of burial sites.

According to Canadian Dimension, industry expects to ship the wastes “in two to three trucks per day for fifty years, in one of three potential containers.” None of the three containment methods has been subjected to rigorous testing.

Even without an accident, trucking the wastes will emit low levels of radiation, which industry claims will produce “acceptable” exposure. Transferring it from the facility to truck and then to repository also poses major risks.

Although industry claims storing high-level radioactive waste in deep geological repositories is safe, no such facility has been approved anywhere in the world, despite many years of industry effort.

Canadian Dimension says, “a growing number of First Nations have passed resolutions or issued statements opposing the transportation and/or disposal of nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario, including Lac Seul First Nation, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen, Grassy Narrows First Nation, Fort William First Nation, and Wabaseemoong Independent Nations.”

Five First Nations — including Grassy Narrows, which is still suffering from industrial mercury contamination after more than 60 years — have formed the First Nations Land Alliance, which wrote to the NWMO, stating, “Our Nations have not been consulted, we have not given our consent, and we stand together in saying ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear waste storage site near Ignace.”

Groups such as We the Nuclear Free North are also campaigning against the plan.

All have good reason to be worried. As Canadian Dimension reports, “All of Canada’s commercial reactors are the CANDU design, where 18 months in the reactor core turns simple uranium into an extremely complex and highly radioactive mix of over 200 different radioactive ingredients. Twenty seconds exposure to a single fuel bundle would be lethal within 20 seconds.”

The spent fuel will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and contamination and leaks are possible during storage, containment, transportation and burial. Industry, with its usual “out of sight, out of mind” approach, has no valid way to monitor the radioactive materials once they’re buried.

With 3.3 million bundles of spent fuels already waiting in wet or dry storage at power plants in Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and Manitoba, and many more to come, industry is desperate to find a place to put it all.

Even with the many risks and no site yet chosen for burial, industry and governments are looking to expand nuclear power, not just with conventional power plants but also with “small modular reactors,” meaning they could be spread more widely throughout the country.

Nuclear power is enormously expensive and projects always exceed budgets. It also takes a long time to build and put a reactor into operation. Disposing of the radioactive wastes creates numerous risks. Energy from wind, solar and geothermal with energy storage costs far less, with prices dropping every day, and comes with far fewer risks.

Industry must find ways to deal with the waste it’s already created, but it’s time to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels. As David Suzuki Foundation research confirms, renewable energy from sources such as wind and solar is a far more practical, affordable and cleaner choice.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at davidsuzuki.org.

EXCERPT: The spent fuel will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and contamination and leaks are possible during storage, containment, transportation and burial.

REFERENCES:

Mining, processing and transporting uranium:

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/radzyminski2/

According to Canadian Dimension:

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/nuclear-waste-in-northwestern-ontario

Industrial mercury contamination:

https://davidsuzuki.org/story/environmental-racism-underlies-grassy-narrows-mercury-and-suicide-crises

Wrote to the NWMO, stating:

We the Nuclear Free North:

3.3 million bundles of spent fuels:

Industry and governments are looking to expand nuclear power:

https://davidsuzuki.org/story/clean-energy-transition-sparks-nuclear-reaction

Small modular reactors:

https://davidsuzuki.org/story/is-smaller-better-when-it-comes-to-nuclear

David Suzuki Foundation research:

https://davidsuzuki.org/science-learning-centre-article/shifting-power-zero-emissions-electricity-across-canada-by-2035

Exit mobile version