This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Media Blackout: Canada Plans To Dump Nuclear Waste Less Than Mile From US Border
Submitted by TheAntiMedia.org,
Over the last few years, the United States has not had the best track record with Deep Geologic Repositories (DGR) for nuclear waste. In February of 2014, the U.S.’ DGR, known as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), had two separate incidents that compromised the integrity of the project by releasing airborne radioactive contamination. While most U.S. citizens were relatively unaffected by the events, our Canadian neighbors have proposed a plan to construct a DGR 0.6 miles from America’s largest source of fresh water, the Great Lakes — and the U.S. State Department is remaining relatively uninvolved.
In 2004, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) signed an agreement with the mayor of the Municipality of Kincardine that detailed the million-dollar payments OPG would make to Kincardine and four other shoreline municipalities for their support in the construction of a DRG. On December 2nd, 2005, OPG submitted a proposal to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to construct a long-term DGR for low and intermediate level nuclear waste on the Bruce Nuclear site within Kincardine. Bruce Nuclear is situated on the banks of Lake Huron — the same Lake Huron that borders the state of Michigan.
The 157-page document the OPG submitted to the CNSC outlined their plan to bury low and intermediate level nuclear waste — radioactive contaminated mops, rags, and industrial items as well as, resins, filters, and irradiated components from the nuclear reactors.
The OPG’s 2005 plan included thirty-one limestone burial caverns carved 680 meters below ground, extending approximately 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) from Lake Huron. In the initial report, the OPG published a favorable community reaction:
“The results of Public Attitude Research indicate that…a large number of local residents feel a long-term waste management facility would have no effect on their level of satisfaction with the community,” it said.
Fast forward ten years, and some important public attitudes outside of the Municipality of Kincardine have vehemently voiced their opposition towards a nuclear waste dump less than a mile from one of the world’s largest fresh water sources. There are 41 million people living in the Great Lake region, and the OPG’s plan for a DGR is rightfully rubbing them the wrong way — so much so that groups like Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump, the Canadian Environmental Law Agency (CELA), and the Sierra Club Canada are actively and vocally calling attention to the invalidity of the OPG’s plan, which includes a $35.7 million payment to fund construction.
In a statement to VICE, the Sierra Club’s program director, John Bennet, questioned the integrity of the OPG’s review panel, as it is full of “ex-nuclear industry officials.” He stated, “…[the panel has] never not approved a [nuclear] project.” If you are wondering why a site so close to such an important body of fresh water was chosen to store radioactive nuclear material, you’re not alone. In CELA’s assessment of OPG’s research and plans, they stated:
“OPG has not described how the alternatives to the proposed DGR and the alternative means of carrying out the project were evaluated and compared in light of risk avoidance, adaptive management capacity, and preparation for surprise…The DGR project cannot be identified as the preferred option until this has been done.”
The aforementioned environmental groups are not the only constituents fighting against the DGR. In the United States and Canada, 169 resolutions have been passed against the DGR. Further, U.S. Senators Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters have co-introduced the Stop Nuclear Waste by Our Lakes Act. The act calls for the State Department to invoke the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, mandating a study of OPG’s plan by the International Joint Commission.
Given the United States’ failure to build its own secure DGR, you would think the State Department would be concerned about its largest fresh water source’s close proximity to one. But, according to a VICE source,
“…[a representative from the State Department] said they have no plans to call for the binational review the senators are demanding.”
Above all, given the risk inherent to the generation, disposal, and storage of nuclear power and waste, it is essential we use cases like this to support the aggressive promulgation of sustainable, clean energy. Beyond the threat imposed to those living in Kincardine and the Great Lakes region, everyone along the three hour drive between the Pickering and Darlington nuclear stations and the Bruce Nuclear site will be at risk while the waste is transported to the dump. Our current system is literally toxic and until citizens step up and stop millions of dollars from swaying government municipalities’ support of nuclear power companies, we will have few solutions to this poisonous problem.
»
- 25483 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Too many Americans. Got to reduce...reuse and recycle.
what could go wrong ? !
JHC.. they have the whole F’ng Arctic to remotely store that poison.
I would rather nuke Ottawa than allow that to happen.
I bet Trump would, too.
Come on ZHers! This is obvious scaremongering. When you bury something 1000 feet beneath rock, it makes no difference if there's a lake on top.
There are plenty of real risks to be worried about in the world. This is not one of them.
Also, quit bandwagoning and hammering down the few voices of sanity on the thread who are trying to shake you our of your delusion.
The ZH anti-nuke sentiment is strong. Guessing a lot of people alive to see Three Mile Island and Chernobyl who won't let reason or evidence break them from their emotional association of nuclear with evil.
Everyone would do well to watch the documentary Pandora's Promise, which details the radical green/left's irrational hatred of all things nuclear. When France has the stones to produce 80% of their electricity with nuclear, and we're too busy fearmongering nonsense like this, it makes me ashamed to be an American. I should never have to look up to France for anything except rates of venereal disease.
I am glad there are some on ZH that "get it."
We have been lied to about nuclear energy and so-called waste.
https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11142425_3630...
Couldnt we just invite Canada to disperse the rad waste evenly, in a half mile wide stripe, 1900 miles long at our southern border? How much rad waste can they offer?
why don't they bury their nucular waste on the moon, or Sudbury, Ontario, which looks like the moon?
No no Sudbury also produces some gold. Can't we make it Toronto, where there are no humans?
@ The_Virginian
The bias is well placed, and ZH crowd understands that. Forget Chernobyl and 3 mile island, look at Fukushima. A giant part of Japan is gone for a century and deformed plants and animals (and soon humans) are the immediate aftermath. The radiation in the water already reached California. That's just one nuclear plant, and it was located in a country that knows a thing or two about the dangers of nuclear energy and did everything they could to safeguard it, but nature had other plans.
Anything is better than nuclear. You can't stop an earthquake or tsunami.
Actually we have already been sending our trash down the border for years. I don't see why nuclear trash can't be sent for a reasonable additional fee. USSA is becoming a desert anyway, fast...
Edit: Never mind. Rather than post something inane, I did my own research. THORIUM isn't an answer.
" A giant part of Japan is gone for a century and deformed plants and animals (and soon humans) are the immediate aftermath"
First, the current exclusion area is about the size of a middling to small Texas cattle ranch. Less in fact, and will steadily shrink to the area adjacent to the plant in about 5 years or less, depending on the remaining levels of public hysteria. At worst a radius of ~5km, tops. Hardly "giant", even if one has difficulty separating fact from scaremongering. And there are no credible instances of deformations or abnormalities of any kind to flora and fauna, even immediately adjacent to the reactor buildings. None.
"...and it was located in a country that knows a thing or two about the dangers of nuclear energy and did everything they could to safeguard it..."
In hindsight, Japan has amply demonstrated it had virtually no understanding of nuclear energy, less what sorts of steps should be taken to ensure safety. eg: They had placed the back-up power generators and their fuel sources in basements, behind a surge wall they knew was far too low. Not exactly smart wouldn't you say? There are hundreds of other examples of lax care and control, but most certainly nowhere near "everything they could". However it is now very certain that they have learned a painful lesson and it is very fortunate that nobody will get sick or die as a result of their incompetence -- unless one considers the fear factor. I would go so far as to say that Japan now has the safest reactor plants in the world.
Nuclear is without question the safest and cleanest energy choice. Are you aware how many deaths can be directly attributed to the scaremongering around Fukusima?
If you're gonna write a post that long, at least know your shit. I won't bother with all the links to debunk your nonsense, I'l ll just pick one:
And there are no credible instances of deformations or abnormalities of any kind to flora and fauna, even immediately adjacent to the reactor buildings. None.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/fukushima-mutant-daisies-go-viral-after-deforme...
None? 110kms from Fukushima.
I've lived long enough to see three nuclear disasters and none of them have been good. Having said that, I'm not against nuclear power, but you can't tell me that with all that landmass there isn't a better way to store the waste.
+1. This act is so blatantly stupid on its face that it can only be be deliberate.
My guess is that some member of the legislature and/or his/her cronies have some sort of financial interest in the location being chosen. There simply isn't any shakedown potential north of 60.
Just like the Iranian Nuke deal. The payoffs were made years before - top to bottom.
Do you work for the Nuke Industry, CIA, NSA? Have you heard about Fukushima? Does a dying Pacific Ocean open your eyes to the threat that is Nuclear
Spent fuel pools require mechanical and energy infrastructure to keep from burning and sending unthinkable amounts of radiocative particles into the air.
This is a good article but it doesn't go into the risk of an extended interruption of power and maintenance. Spent fuel pools could turn a multi-week systemic breakdown into an extinction event. It's hard to see a different outcome.
http://www.ips-dc.org/spent_nuclear_fuel_pools_in_the_us_reducing_the_de...
Then don't use a storage pool.
Glassification would be the final word for this stuff. Then store it a 5 day drive from the nearest population center.
Ad hominem.
You're an idiot.
I was hoping closer to Vancouver.
It’ a bitch being delusional about the Canadian's disposition or ability to properly care for the environment.
http://ericwalberg.com/images/stories/tarsands1.jpg
Fun fact: the Alberta tar sands are about the size of the country of England.
http://www.gaiafoundation.org/canada-alberta-tar-sands-the-most-destructive-project-on-earth
The area around Kincardine sits over 700’ above sea level, the lake bed drops to 575’ above sea level within a mile of shore
That tends to narrow the margin of safety a bit.
And that does not even count the hazards of transportation.
If I had a dime for every gallon of heavy tar sand crude spilled in the US I could afford to buy one of those Greek islands up for sale now.
Gawd....I got a bridge to sell. Will you buy that bullshit too?
Look up "Hanford"
Toxic nuclear waste leaking out into the river everydayeveryday now. ...media is silent. Worst catastrophic environmental issue in America.cares. care!!!!
Umm...It is a really bad idea to put a nuclear waste facility anywhere near the wqorlds largest source of fresh water. Doesnt take a genious to figure that out. Like others have said, they have literally millions of square miles of solid canadian shield bedrock to bury this in hundreds of miles from anyone except caribou. Why wouldnt they put it there rather than right next to the great lakes? It is not scare mongering, just common sense. Play the bond king or duqesne management game (where they say if you came from mars and looked at conditions you wwould think the fed would be...lowering rates not raising, or would have already raised last year). If you were coming from mars and were asked while looking at a map of north america where you would want to store some nuclear waste, would you choose the spot right next to the great lakes? No I think not.
"...There are plenty of real risks to be worried about in the world. This is not one of them..."
I agree. The Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (Honeywell at the time) had thousands of barrels of radioactive waste - and other mystery toxic waste - simply rolled off barges INTO Lake Superior in the late 50's and early 60's. Those drums are just sitting on the bottom of Lake Superior rusting away. One of the dump sites is a mile away from the Duluth city water intake.
We should probably be worried about those rusty barrels for now. The problem is that even if we spent millions to dig them out of the lake, there's no where to put it. We would have to dig a deep geologic repository in sedimentary rock somewhere near the Canadian border to get rid of it. The Canadians would be so pissed at us if we tried anything like that.
Hey - why don't we just create a 1,900 mile long open-air dump along the Mexican border? If you can make it across without melting, you get automatic American citizenship for the rest of your short, cancer-ridden life. And interment services (in the dump, of course - you're radioactive). Hell, we'll even throw in a free Batman towel, Pell Grant and low-interest used-car loan. Welcome, citizen!
Hey - why don't we just create a 1,900 mile long open-air dump along the Mexican border? If you can make it across without melting, you get automatic American citizenship for the rest of your short, cancer-ridden life
Brilliant. I think you just gave Trump his wall.
Nothing to see here /sarc
The only "environmental" concern today is that if we run temperature data from 1900 to the present using then antiquated equipment and mixing it in with current data recorded with modern equipment and analyze it with a supercomputer and get a 1 degree Celsius discrepancy of statistical insignificance and extrapolate that data over the supposed billions of years old the planet is, then promote doom that we'll all drown, burn up, etc. unless we pay carbon taxes using Ken Lay of Enron's con game system.
The environment is completely wrecked and this is the hot button issue. One or two degrees Celsius? As if nature cares about 1s and 0s on a computer screen. Nature doesn't work on statistical averages. Global cooling, AGW, climate change, oh wait I think its called climate chaos today but I could be wrong because they keep changing the label due to the latest trendiest fearmongering crackpot theory.
The environmental movement is over because 1s and 0s on a computer screen have become more important to activists than real environmental destruction. Nuclear waste being high up there as a one of the biggest threats.
There's lots of frogs, bumble bees and butterflies in my yard this summer so I'm pretty happy.
I just got my new flamethrower, so I'm pretty happy.
I'll be right over.
I believe that's called soylent green.
"The scoops are on the way... the scoops are on the way!"
Soylent Green day is Tuesday.
soylent fluorescent green
soylent fluorescent green
"The Green Run" Look it up
President Zippy will protect us......
What is Don Trump's view ?
I'm sure he would talk tough to Canada.
Like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFCb4j0E2p4
People who are anti-nuclear power are bad at math. If you fight nuclear power, you implicitly support coal - and coal kills 3 million people per year world wide.
Watch the movie "Pandora's Promise".
Also - the Canadian Shield is the most geologically stable piece of land on earth.
Except coal is dying fast, 5 years from now 80% of it will be gone.
The collapse of coal generation is one of the untold stories of 2015
1. You're nuts.
2. I'm against uranium nuclear.
3. I'm for thorium nuclear.
4. I'm universally against foreign waste being near me.
"2. I'm against uranium nuclear.
3. I'm for thorium nuclear."
I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as thorium reactors. The Th-232 must be turned into U-233 - it is just another Uranium isotope.
"I'm universally against foreign waste being near me."
NIMBY - and that's why there will be no long term solutions, and why when the grid fails the whole world will be irradiated. Because we let vocal people like you endanger all of us.
Hardly a substitute for deeper and more credible sources, but it's a start:
Thorium-based Nuclear Power Wiki
Yes, because coal is the only alternative to nuclear..... lulz
Talking Baseline power here, not Green power.
Never heard of natural gas or is that too green for you?
Yea,,, well they don't exactly count the nuke kills, now do they?
And your 3 million killed by coal is derived hypothetically.
Anything for the GW BS.
Nuclear has the second lowest deaths per kWh, lower than solar, wind and nat gas, much lower than coal. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Arto Lauri...Meat and Bones...ewetoobs.
you are misguided.
Bingo!! Arto Lauri has a wealth of information concerning the nuclear industry. Arto explains why the Nuclear age is coming to an end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSQdB3myW9M
us too.
Correct, and when the nuke plant emits or fails they cover it up. The death toll of nuke plants overall is huge.
The destruction unleashed by nuke problems does not go away either. Fukushima is a HUGE enviromental catastrophy but the GW dummies can't even see it. Oh, and the GW group, the ones who actually believe and are not just part of the power play, never bother to look up at the spraying right over their heads.
This is not about stability. I suggest you investigate Hanford nuclear contamination on the Columbia. When I lived 5 years in Spokane, I was shocked at the amount of thyroid cancer and disease and rate of MD present. I wouldn't be surprised at a link.
Miffed
Miffed, what you typed may be true. But this is where I'd raise my hand and say, "Objection, your honor. Relevancy."
What went on at the Hanford site from 1945 through the 1960s happened on the surface. It's believed that, when we were going through the learning phase of working with nuclear energy, the handling of radioactive waste materials was not adequate by today's standards. There were reported instances of waste being dumped directly into the Colombia.
Contrast with this thread's ridiculous scaremongering over depositing low to medium level radioactive waste products in a very stable hollowed out limestone deposit 1000 feet below the surface.
I admit to you that 1945-1960 is certainly not today and I will not argue with you in terms of geology because I have no expertise in that area. However, toxicity from radioactivity has been well studied. I find it interesting there is no definitive conclusion as to what is more deadly, short exposure to high dose or long term exposure to low dose. Because we thankfully frown on human experimentation, research is done on Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island as well as in real time Fukushima where I know researchers are going to look at the increases of leukemia in children as a marker.
In my own field if I were to change a reagent for analysis outside its intended use I would lose my license. This is because my experimentation could potentially harm a patient being not rigorously tested to be safe and effective. It may very well be better but the risk is deemed unacceptable. Shall we trust your faith and judgement that the risk in this area is acceptable? Is the possible danger of this learning phase worth the potential of success? We look back at history when people are told " It's completely safe" only to see the horrible results... Radium Girls for example. We scoff at the ignorance of the time now but whose to say in 50 years, you may be the recipient of such a label and once the die is cast, very difficult to undo.
This is an issue not confined to nuclear power and we are wise to be skeptical in all things touted as safe today.
Miffed
My brother lives in Lewiston, Idaho just up river from Hanford. Last year when I visited, I took my Geiger counter (an old CDV-700) and calibrated it against a Cesium-137 standard, then took measurements of the air and water, because my brother was concerned and his family was always sick. Well, I found nada in the air and water...but...he had grapes growing out back, and when I tested them I read seven times the background level of radiation, which disappeared once the grapes were washed.
Now, some would say 7x background isn't significant, but if you are ingesting this stuff every day it's gonna have an effect...though looking at his kid's diets, I'd say the main culprit for their current illnesses are the overwhelming amounts of GMO's they eat.
The Canadian Shield is Pre-Cambrian igneous and metamorphic rock.
Sorry Copernicus, but limestone aint igneous or metamorphic.
It's sedimentary rock prone to dissolution by groundwater.
I suggest you look at where Kincardine is located vs a map of the Canadian Shield. It aint located on the Shield.
The Upper Silurian Salina formation which is home to the salt mines and brine wells used to produce salt is approximately 3,000 above the Pre-Cambrain basement rock. The entire stratigraphic sequence in the salt region of Lake Huron is comprised of carbonates (limestone, dolomite, etc), shales and evaporites (salt).
Compass Minerals owns many of the salt mines and brine wells in the Kinkardine region. I'd suspect they have been lobbying the State Dept to prevent the congress critters from stopping this plan.
"It's sedimentary rock prone to dissolution by groundwater."
No Copernicus, not when it's 1000 feet beneath the surface. We're not talking about limestone falls in some scenic National Park. We're talking about salt that has to be mined out. There ain't no "dissolution by groundwater" 1000 feet down dude.
Ridiculous scaremongering.
I'll put my two geology degress up against your internet degree any day.
You're telling me groundwater does not exist 1000 feet below the surface?
Ever hear of brine well mining?
http://www.geologyontario.mndmf.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/IMR...
Go back to 5th grade Earth Science class, assclown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krubera_Cave
Yeah, that cave formed in karst deposits is only 7,000 feet deep.
OK, so the topic was how water seepage to/from a lake 1000 feet above can transport radionuclides from the salt cavern. I contend that the bed of rock serves as an insulator to prevent this transport. Your response was to give the example of brine wells?
You could not possibly be this stupid. In a brine well, WE DELIBERATELY PUMP THE WATER DOWN THERE. This serves to prove MY point, that water typically does not naturally exist at these depths.
Then you mention the truly exceptional case of the Krubera Cave in Ukraine, which, to my knowledge, is not being used to store nuclear waste, and act as if you've scored a touchdown or something.
You need to go back to whatever university issued you your geology degrees, and demand your money back.
It's a little lat to worry about great lakes nuclear contamination
Great Lakes Nuclear Hotspots
http://goo.gl/maps/vVPFk
it's the plutonium-breeding-for-nuclear-weapons nuclear I'm against
thorium nuclear I am for 100% and we can get the fuel out of that coal waste practically for free
...as someone pointed out earlier, Thorium has to be transmutted into Uranium-233 before it can be used.
The thorium fuel cycle, which is based upon the idea of bombarding Thorium 232 (Th232 - which is NOT fissile) with neutrons in an operating nuclear reactor in order to make Uranium 233 (U233 - which is fissile), would take decades (at best) to become a fully viable alternative fuel source.
Step 0 - Create an industrial complex capable of mining and processing thorium in large quantities. Presumably this would be easy, possibly operating within a matter of a year or two.
Step 1 - Develop operating, certified breeder reactors (to turn the Th232 into U233) - which you could expect to take several years of development. As a side note, these reactors will have to be started using traditional fissile fuel, either U235 or Pu239.
Step 2 - Develop and build reprocessing facilities to separate the freshly created U233 from the spent nuclear fuel. Although reprocessing is not new, this task also would not be trivial because of the unique difficulties in working with U232 (which would also be produced). This would take years.
Step 3 - Either replace the existing power reactors or retrofit them to operate on U233. Again, this won't be an easy 'plug and play' and will take years, probably decades.
My estimate is that this transition could be done in perhaps 15 years if it were a national emergency (which it isn't), or more likely 30-50 years at best. You could merge steps 1/2/3 if you transition to more advanced combined breeder/power reactors; but this wouldn't necessarily save any time to implementation.
That sound suspiciously like a machine that produces cleaner-burning gasoline, but it has to use dirty gasoline to do it. But isn't that what the ethanol industry is doing?
Ever hear of NG?
Canadian shield is north of there. Limestone caverns are where sinkholes come from
have to love the north/south border policies of liberal progressives:
they say NO to an oil pipeline coming down from canada
they say YES to nuclear waste coming down from canada
they say YES to drug dealers & job takers coming up from from mexico
Regarding the job takers coming up from Mexico - exactly which jobs are they taking away from Americans ?
Ya know - we live in Mexico and rented the first year we were here - from an executive (who is Mexican) with a large chemical company in the US. He is 100% legal - and lives in the US with his wife and 2 kids (very nice people) - in a nice house. His compensation is probably equal to 100s of 'illegal' immigrants.
"Regarding the job takers coming up from Mexico - exactly which jobs are they taking away from Americans ?"
How about anywhere the illegal alien invaders are employed? Duh.
I'm glad your freind is not here killing American citizens like so many illegals are.
Deport them all. NOW!
Grimaldus
divedivedive - granted, they are taking jobs i don't have to worry about (im an executive myself in finance). BUT i do love my country and it SHOULD be about care about those in your own house first. we have ALOT of people at the opposite end of the income scale who could use jobs in kitchens, construction, baby sitting, gardening, food, etc. this whole notion that "those are jobs americans don't want" is about as truthful as a 4.5% unemployment rate. people here want to work but when you don't have high education, skills, etc. you have to start somewhere and a job is a job. people here need to make $$$ not take it from the government (taxpayer). so id end all welfare, free shit programs, etc. and THEN you'd see how fast liberals, democrats, etc. would agree with me to make sure people come here LEGALLY and not just skip over & front-run those jobs that could be putting $$$ in american pockets rather than illegals. they should focus on building up their own countries and making them great rather than coming here ILLEGALLY to poach jobs & hope on the system. after all, we are $19 trillion in debt. if you come here illegally to work a job, chances are, your NOT paying taxes so its only exasterbating the problem(s) we have here IMO.
aliki - I am a guest of Mexico and here 100% legal. I pay my taxes in the US - although I spend less than a week there per year. Believe me - there are alot of Americans living here who pay no taxes to either country. I guess this is one of the foundations of the FATCA regulations. I'll bet there are millions of Americans living in Mexico 'illegally' in that they have not bothered to renew their visas. They have businesses, own property. I live far away from any main artery between the US and Mexico. Earlier this year there were pickups filled with emmigrants (with their suitcases) heading North. I've made this comparison before on ZH - it reminded me of when I was a kid and they declared that the Woodstock Music Festival was now a free festival. My friends and I almost immediately jumped in our cars and headed North on the NY Thruway. I 'genuinely' had the impression that Obama had put out the welcome mat.
"GREEN" Technology according to environuts.
Are you ******* ******* me?..
Man think of the money the financial perverts could make if they poison the Great Lakes.
Arrest them. Don't let them get away. Arrest Lloyd Blankfein.
Canadian neighbors have proposed a plan to construct a DGR 0.6 miles from America’s largest source of fresh water, the Great Lakes
Fukushima is dumping nuclear waste along the entire West Coast. And rain may be showering nuclear waste on the entire US. No one seems to care. Perhaps, it is the effect of too much radiation
Deep geological repository is such a great euphemism for a toxic dump.Radiation is the new fluoride - guaranteed to preserve your teeth at the expense of your body
Forward
May I add this..
http://www.globalresearch.ca/shock-fracking-used-to-inject-nuclear-waste-underground-for-decades/5435114
Someone needs to take out the person that signs this into happening and beat his ass senseless. Where in the hell is the EPA when you need them. This is absolutely the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Absolutely crazy.
EPA has nothing to do with the formal approval process of this. It's all Canadian. You would THINK that the EPA would register an objection to something this close to the border and this close to such an important fresh water supply, but I wouldn't hold my breath. After all, the EPA has been roundly criticized for paying a deaf ear to concerns from citizens on the West Coast regarding Fukushima radiation.
I say dump it in an ocean sediment depository location, like the Marianas trench, some place where nature will bury it deeper & deeper continuously for 100,000 years.
Loose sediment on top of a tectonic plate doesn't get pulled under with the plate in a consistent fashion as far as anyone can tell. If you tossed a very heavy barrel of something and it landed on sediment at the deepest part of the trench, it would take 10,000 years to disappear - maybe. No container will last that long, and they're not sure how a giant block of fused radioactive glass would act in that environment.
If you wanted to be sure your nuclear waste got pulled under and didn't get churned around (or wouldn't come back to revisit you) you would have to go somewhere near the Marianas trench and mine down to the solid rock part of the plate and probably a thousand feet into that for good measure. Meaning you would have to dig a hole deeper than the deepest place on earth through very hard rock to make sure your garbage hole would ride down with the plate undisturbed.
It does make sense, it's just that the technology to prepare a suitable tectonic plate nuclear waste dump only exists in the comic books for now and will cost a fortune when it does exist. And we still haven't invented an encasing technology that we figure will reliably last for a couple of hundred years, much less a couple of thousand or tens-of-thousands. I'm sure big government parasite corporations like Betchel have scientists that disagree - as long as they get the contract for the wacky plan and get absolved of any future liability.
Encase it in asbestos.
Then, you get paid twice.
Or just send it to the moon, because that worked so well in Space 1999.
But... but... what about the fish?
Fascism at work, at its best.
Zion is a scheme, not an ethnicity..
You are a living slogan .... ever have an original thought .... are you like Bryce Williams .... a compliance hire ?
And why not?...
The U.S. has thousands of open air sites for it's nuclear waste since the Yucca Mountain facility got shelved to store it!...
Gulf of Mexico oil disaster and oil fracking... Pick your poison(s)?!!!
So the second largest country in the world with vast swathes of unpopulated land, plan to build a waste dump 1km away from the US border.
What assholes.
It's only Tim Hortons coffee grinds - that shit is nuclear
how do you end up choosing a site like that unless your objective is to poison the lakes on purpose?
35 Million people draw their drinking water from the great lakes. Makes about as much sense as burying it at the source of the Mississippi river.
We are governed by some retarded mother fuckers. You can't tell me that with all their land mass that Canada can't find some place to stor that shit. They'll tear up the wilderness for oil, but the can't find a place to store their nuclear toxin. I hate these people.
People who don't understand nuclear like to panic. Not sure what the fear is here. Do you think it will blow up? Terrorists will steal it, drive it a mile and dump it in the great lakes? This is stupid fear mongering. Remember the panic everyone was in about radiation from Fukushima. Remind me how many people were affected by that?
I couldn't fucking down arrow you fast enough. And that Fukushima thing? Why don't you go check the alt media over there and get a REAL handle on what's going on? Children in that area are coming down with a lot of thyroid issues, and the oceans are fucked.
Is that you Ann Coulter? Do us a favor, drink a glass of that shit and vacate this place.
Slot is right. There is a heavy dose of fearmongering here. There is a vast amount of rock between Lake Huron and this hollowed-out cavern 1000 feet beneath the surface. The author seems to think that since 680 meters is an easy walk, that same distance through rock will therefore be an easy trek for low to medium level contaminated materials to magically send their evil radiation to pollute our lovely drinking water. Be afraid! Be very afraid!
There are some real problems in the world to worry about. This ain't one of 'em.
Why dont you look at a stratigraphic sequence of that area and report back to me.
I'll even do you a favor and give you a link for one. See page 5.
http://www.geologyontario.mndmf.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/IMR...
Let me know if you think placing radioactive material in a carbonate sequence is a good idea.
I think it's a great idea.
See above.
The caverns they are proposing to use for this are composed of limestone. Limestone is POROUS and therefore is not a great barrier to the passage of water over time. This is a really stupid idea and needs to be stopped.
Heh, US industry has been dumping toxic wastes and metals directly into the Great Lakes for decades. Currently there are dozens of ports in US waters that are considered highly toxic as a result. Not saying that this entire DGR disposal idea is good, or not. But direct toxic waste into the Lakes by US interests is fine I guess...
US Industry? If the great lakes ever dried up, I'm sure everyone would be surprised by the number of pipes extending into the lake from industrial sites on both sides of the border.
When the price of bunker oil was low, Imperial oil used to just drain it into Lake Erie.
But direct toxic waste into the Lakes by US interests is fine I guess...
They stopped doing this by the late 1970's. Anyone who has lived near Lake Erie for a long time can tell the dramatic difference between the condition of the lake in the 1960's and 70's and now, where the water is so clear that you can see the bottom of the lake in 30 feet of water. Back in the 60's and 70's the water looked and smelled like sewage and massive amounts of dead fish could be seen on the beaches all around the lake - not anymore. Now they want to bury radioactive waste within a half mile of Lake Huron - Brilliant!!!
Fucking Crazy!
If you're going to bury the shit, why not 1000 miles north of the border - where nobody lives for hundreds of miles all around.
That would be a waste of good toxic waste, man.
Polar bears and furry seals, silly....
Probably because this mine already exists and is near where the waste will come from. Spending billions to carve out new tunnels in granite a thousand miles away and ship all the waste there is fine, if someone is going to pay for it. Will the Sierra Club pay for an alternative? Will America?
FFS, if America is going to refuse to build a long term storage in the driest, safest place possible and have no long term storage, what are people supposed to do? Go back to tossing it into the ocean?
FFS, if America is going to refuse to build a long term storage in the driest, safest place possible and have no long term storage, what are people supposed to do? Go back to tossing it into the ocean?
No, they'll just bury it 1/2 mile from the largest source of fresh water in the world. Brilliant idea!!
The reason is that .gov WANTS nuclear radiation to take out the White population.
George W Bush took thousands of tons of irradiated sand from Kuwait and elsewhere and put it in IDAHO. Surely there is not a dime's worth of difference between the Republican and the Democrat parties.
Just as Israel gives our weapons secrets to the Chinese, just as Bill Clinton gave the super computers over the objections of the Pentagon so that Chinese nuclear ICBMs could correct for weather when launching for Los Angeles, et al.
Just as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg gave our atomic secrets to the Soviets and the headline by the editor, Sammy Gach, "THANK GOD!" the day Russia got the A-bomb! (Jewish Voice, Sept. 30, 1949).
You see if you don't know the back story you would think that this is all INSANE, but it is VERY sane, evil, but cold, calculating evil.
The 9 new nuclear reactors were green-lighted by Obama right after Fukushima, as I recall all 9 are to be built in the Southern states of the USSA.
The fact that ILLEGAL ALIENS are working at nuclear power plants in the USSA should be NATIONAL News, but no it was only LOCAL News.
Arpaio Deputy Nabs Illegal Alien Worker at Nuclear Plant
Undocumented immigrant with fake ID arrested at AZ nuclear plant
Sep 26, 2012
By Breann Bierman
By Lindsey Reiser
By Steve Stout
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ (CBS5) -
Officials at the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant are taking a closer look at their security measures after a suspected undocumented immigrant was caught at a checkpoint Wednesday.
Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies said Nestor Martinez-Ochoa, 40, tried to report to work at a construction site at the plant, but they stopped him because they said his driver's license looked suspicious.
Illegal immigrant working inside nuke plant arrested
KVOA Channel 4 NBC Tucson, Arizona
Jul 14, 2011
PHOENIX - Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's deputies arrested an illegal immigrant working inside the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, the nation's largest nuclear plant and one of the most closely monitored in the country.
Cruz Loya Alvares was taken into custody by Sheriff Deputies Wednesday and interrogated by the Sheriff's Human Smuggling detectives.
Deputies determined that the worker is, in fact, here illegally. Cruz admitted he has been in the U.S. illegally for most of the past 15 years. He was detained and deported in 2000 but paid a coyote for re-entry into the U.S. And last month, Cruz admitted that in June 2011, Mesa Police cited him for driving with a suspended license.
What's the big deal? Across the border in ND they had nukes for years. Who needs those sitting where NK, the Russians, Chinese and Israel all know where they are so when and if they attack guess who goes first?
Why is this a problem? Japan is dumping their's all along the entire west coast every day.
If the EPA's turning a river orange with toxic waste did no (official) enviromental damage, then Canada is just getting rid of their nuclear waste as close to nature's magical mystery purification plant as possible.
Chicago would be a good start....it wouldn't make any difference in Detroit though.
dump it on wall st, everyone wins in that situation!!!
And no humans will be harmed in the process
Dump it on the Pentagon. I hear they like nukes...
Just another strike at those pesky Chinamen all the while skipping down the yellow brick road to Switzerland.
It's almost like these government authorities are trying to kill millions of people on purpose. Huh.
They are burying it there, because one of the world's largest salt mines is under the great lakes, and has been mined for decades. There are miles of tunnels under there, and over time, anything placed in those tunnels will be buried as the salt reforms. This is not a new plan. There is literally tons of sh*t buried down there already. Both the US and Canada have been putting stuff down there.
There are miles of tunnels under there . . .
What people don't know is they have also created huge redoubts in the tunnels of the salt domes under Detroit and Cleveland for the "elite" (God I HATE that term!) to use as a refuge in the event of nuclear war or other catastrophic event. Joe Public IS NOT invited . . .
They want to dump radioactive rags? I didn't know the nuclear industry employed so many women...
The Great Lakes represent 25% of the total fresh water in the entire world. The lakes are interconnected so whats in Lake Huron (where the toxic dump will be) will flow into Lake Eire and then into Lake Ontario.
The nuclear company is claiming only low level waste will be deposited there. Ha. They will start off that way then change thoings once the dump is built and throw everything in there! That's the way these creeps work.
Canadians .... Canediens .... drink from the same Kool Aid pitcher .... and the Marianas Trench dump was my idea .... even my clever jokes .... are visionary ?
I had the same idea.
Send the stuff back into the magma that it came from.
Our Environmental Laws are very strict, and Ontario Power Generation is a super well funded utility with the best-of-the-best technicians, technologists, Engineers, and Environmentalists. Clearly, the sensationalist 'Antimedia.org' is simply generating hype n' ignorance. Moreover, my best friend works for OPG, and they are an excellent employer.
This is ZH, confusing the sensationalist issues with facts is not allowed.
Fission nuclear energy generation, and the waste it produces, sucks monkey ass ... tell your BS to someone that doesn't know people impacted by radiation caused cancer.
I AM SULLY has been on Z/H for 1 week and three days, Z/H.
nuff said.
Didn't someone once say that about TEPCO, pre 3-11-11?
I know, I know....
They're from the gorvernment, they're here to help.
God save us.
Squid
It's their country, they can put it wherever it pleases them.
Technically, the US border runs down the middle of Lake Huron, so the proposed dump is very close to Lake Huron, but maybe about 80 miles from the US border. But as Shatzi has already noted, there are huge portions of Northern Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec, and Labrador that are stable Canadian Shield terrain with some of the lowest population densities on the planet. So it makes no sense to locate a nuclear waste dump at the proposed site, unless that decision is being made by bean counters with veto power over the input of any experts on nuclear waste disasters.
The underground caverns are the remainder of massive salt dome mining operations. The site is close to major highways and rail lines. It is relatively close to metropolitan Toronto, not too far, given the distances usually associated with Canada, from Montreal. Those are the areas one would assume will be generating most of the low-level radioactive waste to be stored at Kincardine. While the old salt mines will have to be retrofitted to receive the radioactive waste, much of the infrastructure, including a vast undergound open space over 2,000 ft. below the surface, is already in place. Possibly some new industry is needed in Kincardine if the salt mines are shutting down.
If you are looking to solve the local economic problems of Kincardine, looking to have low transportation costs from where the waste originates to where it gets stored, and looking for the smallest possible initial captial expenditure, this idea makes perfect sense. Of course, in doing so you would be looking away from the possiblity that something would go wrong and irradiate the southern half of Lake Huron and everything else downstream from there to the Atlantic Ocean.
I have a better alternative in mind.
I think this nuclear waste dump should be located in Detroit and its downriver suburbs, which have the same limestone cap geology and the same huge salt mines ready and waiting, and which are a little further inland from the Detroit River. Metro Detroit is already importing lots of tonnage of Canadian garbage, thousands of trucks every day, a lot of it coming from as far away as Toronto, to be dumped in landfills in the western suburbs. Most of the Detroit area has a thick layer of impermiable blue clay just under the sandy topsoil, making it perfect for modern landfill construction, whereas the Canadian Shield land in Ontario has about the worst possible geology for ecologically safe landfills. It would mean new jobs for the downtrodden economy in metro Detroit. If a "problem" arose, the site would irradiate vacant industrial plants, poor and elderly people of color, arab immigrants (i.e.- "terrorists"), and urban hillbillies who should have had enough sense to go back to Tennessee and Kentucky years ago when the assembly plants closed, rather than an immense source of fresh water. A lead shield could be erected (even more jobs!) to protect wealthy snowbirds travelling to and from Florida on southbound I-75 in the downriver area lest they threaten to stop their campaign contributions due to the extra radiation exposure.
Cleveland also has salt mines.
Let's dump some there as well. /s
If a "problem" arose, the site would irradiate vacant industrial plants, poor and elderly people of color, arab immigrants (i.e.- "terrorists"), and urban hillbillies who should have had enough sense to go back to Tennessee and Kentucky years ago when the assembly plants closed, rather than an immense source of fresh water.
What a fucking asshole comment!! FUCK YOU PAL!!! How about we dump some spent plutonium on your front lawn and let your kids and dogs lick it off.
Maybe the pope can tell us how to save the planet next month.
Sooo... Bambam... about that Keystone project...
Consumption of MAPLE SYRUP causes sterility and dementia....FU Canada!.....
Fortunately the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMA) is coming out of bankruptcy to haul this waste.
Is everyone in a position of power in the world a moron??
This nuclear waste shit gives me a headache....a bit of technical stuff then history.
1. Radio radionuclides produced in a fission reactor are unstable, hence the name radionuclide,
2. They decay, naturally at various rates to stable matter, This decay is known as radioactivity,
3. Item 2 is why these are not found in nature in huge amounts. Left on their own, these radionuclide decay to stable, non radioactive, substances...
4. The question is, HOW LONG does the decay take?
5. item 4 depends upon what kind of radionuclide you have, example, iodine, 8 days, cesium, 31 years, Pu239, 24,000 years, etc.
6. We can engineer holding facilities that can last for 100 years, we can't engineer anything for 10,000 years, forget it.
So, the challenge is then, how do we get rid of bad shit like Pu239 and turn it into manageable shit like Iodine or Cesium? The answer is quite simple, you plop it back into the same reactor that created it which will, break the molecules up(thus turning your bad shit into something else), which is how is was made in the first place. This is nothing new, second year graduate nuclear engineering. The process is called nuclear reprocessing or reprocessing of nuclear fuel....sometimes called waste. The term waste is a misnomer, if its radioactive its a candidate for fission, it will burn in a reactor so its not waste, its fuel. Alas, I digress....
If its so straight forward, what isn't it done?
Well, that's where the story gets interesting. By executive order in 1977, James Carter, then President of the United States and a navy trained nuclear engineer, OUTLAWED the reprocessing of nuclear waste materials in the United States. In so doing, he in fact guaranteed that the USA would have naturally decaying nuclear waste for the next 10,000 years or more. Reagan rescinded the order but it was too late, all commercial operations had already shutdown due to bankruptcy thanx to James carter.
The real question is not technological but political....why did Jimmy Carter do that?
He's a nuclear engineer.....why did he do that?
No one has ever asked him that.
You want to deal with the nuclear waste? Filter the bad shit out, create a fuel rod out of it be push it back into the reactor. Rinse and repeat.
Squid
And so they are fulfilling the Bible's prophesies
That the lakes & rivers (& oceans) will be poisoned
This also means that even the best friends of USA have lost their confidence
And slowly all will
That should pep up the water supply! Lets make those aquifers into Vitamin Water!
Everybody gets a dose of cancer AND chemotherapy in every glass! Yummy!