KING JESUS IS COMING FOR US ANY TIME NOW. THE RAPTURE. BE PREPARED TO GO.
I WAS IN ELMWOOD ONTARIO A WEEK AGO AND JUST STUMBLED ON THIS NUCLEAR WASTE SITE IMFORMATION FOR AREAS IN ONTARIO TO BURY THE NUCLEAR FUEL RODS.I WAS AMAZED-SO YESTERDAY I PHONED THE NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION IN TORONTO.JAMIE THE MAIN GUY WAS OUT OF THE OFFICE TILL AUG 27,12 BUT I TALKED WITH A LADY ABOUT THE SITUATION.
THE LADY TOLD ME THAT 20 SITES WERE BEING CONSIDERED WERE THESE NUCLEAR RODS WILL BE STORED FOREVER.I WAS AMAZED THAT WALKERTON WERE I LIVE WAS ONE OF THE TOWNS WANTING TO STORE THIS NUCLEAR WASTE.OTHER PLACES AS POSSIBLE SITES WERE IN SOUTH BRUCE,ERIN ELDERSLIE,SAUGEEN SHORES, KINLOSS. SHE TOLD ME.I NEVER GOT THE FULL LIST.I WISH I DID.
SHE TOLD ME THERE JUST IN THE INTIAL STAGE WERE THE SITE HAS NOT BEEN SET YET AND WILL NOT BE FOR A WHILE.AS TESTS MUST BE CONDUCTED AND PEOPLES INPUT MUST BE DONE BEFORE THE FINAL PLACE IS FINALIZED.THE LADY TOLD ME IT WILL TAKE AT LEAST 2 YEARS TO SELECT THE FINAL PLACE WERE THE NUCLEAR WASTE WILL BE STORED FOREVER.RIGHT NOW THE WASTE IS BEING STORED IN A CURRENT NUCLEAR SITE.MOST LIKELY PORT ELGIN WERE BRUCE NUCLEAR IS LOCATED.BUT I FORGOT WHICH SITE SHE TOLD ME IT WAS STORED.SO I MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THE PORT ELGIN SITE.BUT ANYWAY,I NEVER EVEN HEARD ABOUT THIS UNDER GROUND SITE IF I WOULD NOT HAVE STUMBLED UPON IT IN ELMWOOD.I'LL KEEP UP WITH THE SITUATION TO SEE WERE THE NUKE MATERIAL WILL BE STORED.
SEPT 30,12 - LAST DATE TO INTERESTED CITIES OR COMUNITIES WANTING TO STORE THE NUCLEAR WASTE IN ONTARIO CANADA
http://www.nwmo.ca/sitingprocess_suspensionofexpressionsofinterest
SELECTING A SITE
http://www.nwmo.ca/help_design
READ ALL ABOUT IT FROM THE SITE
http://www.nwmo.ca/home
The Harper government’s announcement that it will examine the issues
surrounding wind turbines in Southwestern Ontario made front-page
headlines this week — at the same time, the federal government’s inquiry
into building an underground nuclear waste site on Lake Huron’s shores
is receiving very little public and media attention.The public hearings in Ottawa will end in early August, but hardly anybody knows about them.The construction of an underground waste disposal site at the Bruce
nuclear complex on the Canadian side of Lake Huron is proposed, and the
waste site would be located just over a kilometre from Lake Huron and
would house all the radioactive waste from 20 commercial nuclear power
reactors in Ontario, with the exception of irradiated nuclear fuel.What are the merits and demerits of this proposal?Nuclear fuel bundles and other forms of nuclear waste would need to
be transported to Lake Huron by truck or train. Transportation by
helicopter has already been rejected due to environmental safety
concerns. Other countries, like the United States, Japan, and Germany,
have encountered huge public opposition to transporting and storing
nuclear wastes. For instance, one Japanese ship carrying nuclear waste
was forced to stay at sea while German television stations regularly
transmit disturbing scenes of protestors surrounding trains that are
trying to secretly transport nuclear waste.If Ottawa agrees to host a huge nuclear waste site, the timing of the
transport of nuclear waste on provincial highways would need to be kept
secret due to the prospect of public opposition and possible terrorism.
Some roads, like the major highways crossing through Toronto and
southwestern Canada might have to be shut down entirely so that there
was no chance of a terrorist strike against trucks carrying nuclear
waste or public protest.The nuclear waste would need to be stored in containers that would
last tens of thousands of years, without leaking into the Great Lakes
water system. No such containers have been invented. The long-term
sustainability of the current containers manufactured in Japan cannot be
precisely calculated. Improved containers might be invented hundreds of
years from now, but this places an unfair burden on future generations
to clean up this generation’s mess.
Vitrified glass logs could be used to store some waste so that it is less prone to leakage and stealing, but this process is expensive and not technically developed. For now, there is no solution to this problem so most nuclear waste is stored in liquid pools close to the nuclear power plants scattered all around North America.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited estimated the cost of site construction somewhere in Canada would be more than $13 billion, approximately the same as Canada’s entire annual defence budget. Now that AECL has been sold by the federal government, which corporations or government agencies would bear the cost of site construction? Which governments would bear the cost of overruns, commonly expected in all types of huge construction projects? The temptation might be for the federal government to agree to take other countries’ waste in order to offset prohibitive costs.Ensuring the waste site’s security — more than tens of thousands of years —will be hugely expensive. Some jobs, created over many human generations, would help the local economy but only marginally. The monetary advantages for residents of creating a few local jobs would be offset by the many risks incurred, including possible leakage into underground water systems. The costs of increased insurance and emergency planning must also be properly factored into the decision-making process.The president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was fired by the federal government for being too strict in her enforcement of reactor safety regulations. The process of firing her raised serious questions about the lack of democratic decision-making under the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.Since then, the federal government’s failure to establish a new arms-length agency to launch, guide, and determine any waste plan’s acceptability means that the whole process of seeking democratic input has been heavily undermined, decreasing public acceptability further.Indeed, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall was accused of subverting the nuclear hearings because he proposed that a research reactor be built within three years, at the same time as the provincial government was holding public hearings to gauge public sentiment on large-scale reactor construction combined with uranium enrichment. In the end, Saskatchewan seems to have decided against building a nuclear waste disposal site, leaving the problem up to Ontario to clean up.Due to undemocratic decision-making, future Canadians could end up with a liability for hundreds of thousands of years, long after nuclear power plants have fallen out of favour.Erika Simpson is an associate professor of international relations in the department of political science at the Western University, the author of NATO and the Bomb and past vice-chair of Pugwash Canada.
I WAS IN ELMWOOD ONTARIO A WEEK AGO AND JUST STUMBLED ON THIS NUCLEAR WASTE SITE IMFORMATION FOR AREAS IN ONTARIO TO BURY THE NUCLEAR FUEL RODS.I WAS AMAZED-SO YESTERDAY I PHONED THE NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION IN TORONTO.JAMIE THE MAIN GUY WAS OUT OF THE OFFICE TILL AUG 27,12 BUT I TALKED WITH A LADY ABOUT THE SITUATION.
THE LADY TOLD ME THAT 20 SITES WERE BEING CONSIDERED WERE THESE NUCLEAR RODS WILL BE STORED FOREVER.I WAS AMAZED THAT WALKERTON WERE I LIVE WAS ONE OF THE TOWNS WANTING TO STORE THIS NUCLEAR WASTE.OTHER PLACES AS POSSIBLE SITES WERE IN SOUTH BRUCE,ERIN ELDERSLIE,SAUGEEN SHORES, KINLOSS. SHE TOLD ME.I NEVER GOT THE FULL LIST.I WISH I DID.
SHE TOLD ME THERE JUST IN THE INTIAL STAGE WERE THE SITE HAS NOT BEEN SET YET AND WILL NOT BE FOR A WHILE.AS TESTS MUST BE CONDUCTED AND PEOPLES INPUT MUST BE DONE BEFORE THE FINAL PLACE IS FINALIZED.THE LADY TOLD ME IT WILL TAKE AT LEAST 2 YEARS TO SELECT THE FINAL PLACE WERE THE NUCLEAR WASTE WILL BE STORED FOREVER.RIGHT NOW THE WASTE IS BEING STORED IN A CURRENT NUCLEAR SITE.MOST LIKELY PORT ELGIN WERE BRUCE NUCLEAR IS LOCATED.BUT I FORGOT WHICH SITE SHE TOLD ME IT WAS STORED.SO I MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THE PORT ELGIN SITE.BUT ANYWAY,I NEVER EVEN HEARD ABOUT THIS UNDER GROUND SITE IF I WOULD NOT HAVE STUMBLED UPON IT IN ELMWOOD.I'LL KEEP UP WITH THE SITUATION TO SEE WERE THE NUKE MATERIAL WILL BE STORED.
SEPT 30,12 - LAST DATE TO INTERESTED CITIES OR COMUNITIES WANTING TO STORE THE NUCLEAR WASTE IN ONTARIO CANADA
http://www.nwmo.ca/sitingprocess_suspensionofexpressionsofinterest
SELECTING A SITE
http://www.nwmo.ca/help_design
READ ALL ABOUT IT FROM THE SITE
http://www.nwmo.ca/home
Nuclear waste storage depot attracts southern Ontario towns
Published on Monday February 20, 2012
You can call it a repository for used nuclear fuel in an adaptive phased management program.You can call it a nuclear waste site.Either way, a surprising cluster of municipalities in south-western
Ontario’s rural heartland are saying they might want to be the place
where Canada’s spent nuclear fuel is stored for thousands of years.No final decisions on a waste site have been made – or will be for
several years, under the multi-step process put in place by the Nuclear
Waste Management Organization.And the western Ontario municipalities who are showing interest will
be judged against sites proposed by other communities scattered across
Canada.But it’s a surprising show of interest for a region of the country best known for green fields, blue water and Alice Munro.Of course, it’s also the home of the Bruce nuclear station, north of
Kincardine on the shore of Lake Huron – and that’s the touchstone for
the interest in the waste site.The Bruce nuclear operation already keeps its own waste in surface storage areas.For some, it doesn’t seem a big leap to take waste from nuclear power
stations in Pickering, Darlington, Gentilly, Que. and Point Lepreau,
N.B., and from research centres in Whiteshell, Man. and Chalk River.Mayor Bill Goetz, mayor of South Bruce, puts it succinctly, as he
notes that Highway 9 runs straight through his rural municipality on the
way to the Bruce plant:“It’s going to come through here coming or going, so we thought we might as well be in the mix.”
So far, South Bruce and its near neighbours Huron-Kinloss, Brockton and Saugeen Shores have done little more than ask for more information. They’ve taken a tour of the Bruce plant, or are scheduled to do so.
and all communities are still in the earliest stages. It’s likely to take seven to 10 years to narrow the field down to one site.It’s still a long way of making a commitment to host the site. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization, charged with the project, has designed a nine-step process for site selectionThe proposed site will then undergo a detailed environmental assessment before construction starts. The earliest date a storage facility could open, it figures, 2035.And any or all may be ruled out by geology. The storage site will be buried at least 500 metres deep, and must be placed in stable, solid rock that doesn’t permit water to flow through.Still, interest is percolating, and in some ways feeds on itself.David Inglis, mayor of Brockton and Warden of Bruce County, explains:“We thought: Other communities are doing it in our area, and if it’s going to be in our backyard, we want to know all we can about it. If it is in Bruce County, it’s going to affect the whole county for infrastructure and jobs.”The interest discourages some residents who are suspicious of the long term impact of storing tonnes of highly radioactive waste, for millennia to come.
“I think it’s the money that’s speaking to them,” says Ruth MacLean, a minister who lives in Kincardine, and on Bruce Beach in Huron-Kinloss.“I just think this is a company town – everybody knows what side their bread is buttered on.”A fuel storage site in the area is also likely to draw scrutiny in the U.S. A string of Detroit-area municipalities have already protested construction of a low and mid-level nuclear waste storage area now under way at the Bruce site.It won’t hold used fuel, but more mundane objects such as clothing and mops used in radioactive areas.Local Ontario politicians don’t deny the lure of the money.“We’re strictly a farming community and we haven’t got much industry,” says Goetz in South Bruce. “We’re struggling to keep going.”Excavating and building the storage area will employ up to 2,000 workers at a time on a project costing billions.“They estimated anywhere from $18 to $24 billion,” says Goetz. “And in the end they figure there would be 200 permanent employees. That’s the part that would really help us.”(In fact, the NWMO says the lifetime cost of the site will be $16 to $24 billion. That’s equivalent to $6 to $8 billion cash in hand today.)Even some who are apprehensive about bidding for the project want to get more information.
Ruth Dalton, who runs a pottery business in Ripley – part of Huron-Kinloss – is nervous but wants to get solid information.“I definitely want to find out more about it, before everybody goes ahead with this crazy notion,” says Dalton.“Where the truth lies you don’t know, and I’m not sure anybody does know.”
Given that much waste already exists, she says, storing it “might be the lesser of many evils.”But Ruth MacLean says she’s not sure how impartial the information will be. The nuclear industry will marshal its arguments, she knows.The question is: Will there be qualified experts to challenge their point of view?
The mayors note that their people have lived near the Bruce nuclear facility since the first reactor was built there in the 1960s.“Our residents are quite familiar, and I’d like to say comfortable with the nuclear industry as a whole,” says Mitch Twolan of Huron-Kinloss.Wind turbines are a much hotter issue in the community than nuclear waste, says Twolan.“Something has to be done with this spent fuel. As a politician, the easiest thing to do is pass it on to the next generation. I think what you’re hearing from councils around Bruce County is that because we are familiar and comfortable with it, let’s do something now rather than later.”
As for the argument that a waste storage site would damage the agriculture and tourist industries, Twolan – a real estate agent – sees no evidence that the nuclear industry can’t co-exist peacefully with farmers and cottagers.“The nuclear facility has been up there for years, and the prices at Bruce Beach are not going down,” Twolan says.But all the mayors agree that their communities need to be on board with whatever decision is taken.Saugeen Shores – the former communities of Port Elgin and Southampton, north of the Bruce station – has delayed taking further steps toward seeking the waste site until May, to allow more time for its residents to get informed.Mayor Mike Smith says he hopes the Nuclear Waste Management Organization will help send a mailing to every household in the community.But there’s residual sympathy for the nuclear industry, he says, since about one in three workers at the Bruce Station lives in Saugeen Shores.
Note: This article has been edited from a previous version that incorrectly said that Bill Goetz is the mayor of the Municipality of South Huron
So far, South Bruce and its near neighbours Huron-Kinloss, Brockton and Saugeen Shores have done little more than ask for more information. They’ve taken a tour of the Bruce plant, or are scheduled to do so.
and all communities are still in the earliest stages. It’s likely to take seven to 10 years to narrow the field down to one site.It’s still a long way of making a commitment to host the site. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization, charged with the project, has designed a nine-step process for site selectionThe proposed site will then undergo a detailed environmental assessment before construction starts. The earliest date a storage facility could open, it figures, 2035.And any or all may be ruled out by geology. The storage site will be buried at least 500 metres deep, and must be placed in stable, solid rock that doesn’t permit water to flow through.Still, interest is percolating, and in some ways feeds on itself.David Inglis, mayor of Brockton and Warden of Bruce County, explains:“We thought: Other communities are doing it in our area, and if it’s going to be in our backyard, we want to know all we can about it. If it is in Bruce County, it’s going to affect the whole county for infrastructure and jobs.”The interest discourages some residents who are suspicious of the long term impact of storing tonnes of highly radioactive waste, for millennia to come.
“I think it’s the money that’s speaking to them,” says Ruth MacLean, a minister who lives in Kincardine, and on Bruce Beach in Huron-Kinloss.“I just think this is a company town – everybody knows what side their bread is buttered on.”A fuel storage site in the area is also likely to draw scrutiny in the U.S. A string of Detroit-area municipalities have already protested construction of a low and mid-level nuclear waste storage area now under way at the Bruce site.It won’t hold used fuel, but more mundane objects such as clothing and mops used in radioactive areas.Local Ontario politicians don’t deny the lure of the money.“We’re strictly a farming community and we haven’t got much industry,” says Goetz in South Bruce. “We’re struggling to keep going.”Excavating and building the storage area will employ up to 2,000 workers at a time on a project costing billions.“They estimated anywhere from $18 to $24 billion,” says Goetz. “And in the end they figure there would be 200 permanent employees. That’s the part that would really help us.”(In fact, the NWMO says the lifetime cost of the site will be $16 to $24 billion. That’s equivalent to $6 to $8 billion cash in hand today.)Even some who are apprehensive about bidding for the project want to get more information.
Ruth Dalton, who runs a pottery business in Ripley – part of Huron-Kinloss – is nervous but wants to get solid information.“I definitely want to find out more about it, before everybody goes ahead with this crazy notion,” says Dalton.“Where the truth lies you don’t know, and I’m not sure anybody does know.”
Given that much waste already exists, she says, storing it “might be the lesser of many evils.”But Ruth MacLean says she’s not sure how impartial the information will be. The nuclear industry will marshal its arguments, she knows.The question is: Will there be qualified experts to challenge their point of view?
The mayors note that their people have lived near the Bruce nuclear facility since the first reactor was built there in the 1960s.“Our residents are quite familiar, and I’d like to say comfortable with the nuclear industry as a whole,” says Mitch Twolan of Huron-Kinloss.Wind turbines are a much hotter issue in the community than nuclear waste, says Twolan.“Something has to be done with this spent fuel. As a politician, the easiest thing to do is pass it on to the next generation. I think what you’re hearing from councils around Bruce County is that because we are familiar and comfortable with it, let’s do something now rather than later.”
As for the argument that a waste storage site would damage the agriculture and tourist industries, Twolan – a real estate agent – sees no evidence that the nuclear industry can’t co-exist peacefully with farmers and cottagers.“The nuclear facility has been up there for years, and the prices at Bruce Beach are not going down,” Twolan says.But all the mayors agree that their communities need to be on board with whatever decision is taken.Saugeen Shores – the former communities of Port Elgin and Southampton, north of the Bruce station – has delayed taking further steps toward seeking the waste site until May, to allow more time for its residents to get informed.Mayor Mike Smith says he hopes the Nuclear Waste Management Organization will help send a mailing to every household in the community.But there’s residual sympathy for the nuclear industry, he says, since about one in three workers at the Bruce Station lives in Saugeen Shores.
Note: This article has been edited from a previous version that incorrectly said that Bill Goetz is the mayor of the Municipality of South Huron
Debate over possible nearby nuclear waste site buried
Last Updated: July 21, 2012 12:00am
Vitrified glass logs could be used to store some waste so that it is less prone to leakage and stealing, but this process is expensive and not technically developed. For now, there is no solution to this problem so most nuclear waste is stored in liquid pools close to the nuclear power plants scattered all around North America.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited estimated the cost of site construction somewhere in Canada would be more than $13 billion, approximately the same as Canada’s entire annual defence budget. Now that AECL has been sold by the federal government, which corporations or government agencies would bear the cost of site construction? Which governments would bear the cost of overruns, commonly expected in all types of huge construction projects? The temptation might be for the federal government to agree to take other countries’ waste in order to offset prohibitive costs.Ensuring the waste site’s security — more than tens of thousands of years —will be hugely expensive. Some jobs, created over many human generations, would help the local economy but only marginally. The monetary advantages for residents of creating a few local jobs would be offset by the many risks incurred, including possible leakage into underground water systems. The costs of increased insurance and emergency planning must also be properly factored into the decision-making process.The president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was fired by the federal government for being too strict in her enforcement of reactor safety regulations. The process of firing her raised serious questions about the lack of democratic decision-making under the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.Since then, the federal government’s failure to establish a new arms-length agency to launch, guide, and determine any waste plan’s acceptability means that the whole process of seeking democratic input has been heavily undermined, decreasing public acceptability further.Indeed, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall was accused of subverting the nuclear hearings because he proposed that a research reactor be built within three years, at the same time as the provincial government was holding public hearings to gauge public sentiment on large-scale reactor construction combined with uranium enrichment. In the end, Saskatchewan seems to have decided against building a nuclear waste disposal site, leaving the problem up to Ontario to clean up.Due to undemocratic decision-making, future Canadians could end up with a liability for hundreds of thousands of years, long after nuclear power plants have fallen out of favour.Erika Simpson is an associate professor of international relations in the department of political science at the Western University, the author of NATO and the Bomb and past vice-chair of Pugwash Canada.
