We must never forget about the consequences of our actions today on future generations, especially not when nuclear power is involved.
I just answered the following comment on a recent blog post of mine:
"Larissa, I agree with most of the positions that have been articulated by the Green Party. But I am particularly troubled by your dislike of nuclear energy. Nuclear, is, by no means, an optimal energy source, but in terms of radioactive pollution and radioactive waste, it is light years ahead of coal. If a nuclear reactor was proposed for the Moose Jaw area (at Lake Diefenbaker) to replace highly pollutting coal-fired power plants at Estevan or Coronach, would you be for or against such a development?"
There is unfortunately a lot of controversy with the nuclear issue, so I have posted my answer below for others:
At the current rate of usage without building any new nuclear power plants, we would be out of domestic uranium in 40 years! With the soaring price of uranium (approx. $10/pound in the 1990's to appprox. $170/lb these days) and with industry making false claims that nuclear is green, many new plants are proposed around the world and five new plants in Canada as well.
Each gigawatt of nuclear energy requires 170 tonnes of uranium. When the uranium is processed into fuel, 250,000 tonnes of carbon are emitted for every 1000 megawatts produced. Nuclear energy produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases. There is no safe way to store the radioactive waste produced. Nuclear waste stays toxic for one million years! It is highly carcinogenic, and so are the routine emissions of nuclear power plants.
Consider the following information quoted below:
"The KiKK study commissioned by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection in Germany and made public on December 10th 2007 examined cancer rates in young children between 1980 and 2003. It showed a 60% increase in solid cancers and a 117% increase in leukemia among children up to five years of age living within 5 km of 16 German nuclear reactors. It also found a 20-40% increase for all cancers in children living within a 50 km radius of the plants. These nuclear power plants were operating under normal conditions, with radiation releases well within levels allowed for civilian populations."
I just lost my seventeen year-old cousin to cancer. When are we going to start taking responsibilty for our actions and start addressing any known causes of this cancer epidemic?! I have to represent our party's position on nuclear strongly, for Jen.
The quoted info above continues:
"The new evidence from Germany of an association between increased cancers and proximity to nuclear facilities raises difficult questions. Should pregnant women and young children be advised to move away from them? Should local residents eat vegetables from their gardens? And, crucially, shouldn't those governments around the world who are planning to build more reactors think again?"
I do not support and can not support a nuclear power plant being built in Saskatchewan, especially nearby. I hope you won't--can't, either.
As for coal, leave it in the ground! The health consequences from coal are completely awful too, and the effects to the environment from coal are HORRIBLE! That is why we must shift away from non-renewable resources (like uranium) and make the transition to a healthy, just and sustainable energy future.
All of Canada's uranium is mined in Saskatchewan, and 85% of it is exported to the U.S. In a recent book on the war in Afghanistan by Jack Warnock, he writes the following:
"Depleted uranium (DU) is produced during the uranium enrichment process. The U-235 used to produce fuel for reactors that generate electricity is removed, leaving the U-238 isotope. The remaining material is extremely dense and increases the penetration capability of weapons; it is used in the warheads of missiles and bombs. On impact the shell, with its uranium and traces of americium and plutonium, vaporizes, generating very tiny particles of radioactive dust. When this is inhaled it stays in the body, emitting radiation. The DU used in US weapons comes from the uranium mines in Saskatchewan.
Thousands of DU bombs and missiles have been used by US forces in the Afghan and Iraq wars. A typical bunker bomb contains 1.7 tons of depleted uranium."
I shudder to think of what we have done to the health of too many inncocent civilians in Afganistan, most of which are women and children. We all deserve a chance at a healthy life. This is not the legacy that I want Saskatchewan to have. We can't control the uranium mined here once we ship it south of the border. Nuclear is an international security threat and is destroying ecosystems too.
Plus, Saskatchewan's uranium is mined using dirty coal in Texas. How does this make nuclear better than coal? NEITHER should be an option, especially when we have more wind and solar power generating capacity than anywhere else in the world, right here in Saskatchewan!
I am a young women. I have to think of future generations. If I don't, who will? Certainly not Harper!
Can nuclear power meet our energy needs and be the solution to climate change? Not when one considers the cost, pollution and threat to global security associated with nuclear power.The Green Party believes that choices should be economically rational. The best energy choices to respond to the climate crisis should be those that deliver the greatest reduction of GHG per dollar invested. By this criterion, nuclear energy is among the very worst options. Reactors cost billions of dollars, take more than a decade to build, operate unreliably after about the first dozen years of operation, and only produce one type of energy: electricity. Even if the industry were “green and clean” as claimed by the pro-nuclear propaganda efforts, it fails on the economics. Nevertheless, it is neither clean nor green.
I'm sorry that we can not support nuclear to appease your opinion, but I can not lie to yourself or others about this issue. I am too honest by nature, and our children deserve no less.
Peace and Solidarity,
Larissa Shasko
"Larissa, I agree with most of the positions that have been articulated by the Green Party. But I am particularly troubled by your dislike of nuclear energy. Nuclear, is, by no means, an optimal energy source, but in terms of radioactive pollution and radioactive waste, it is light years ahead of coal. If a nuclear reactor was proposed for the Moose Jaw area (at Lake Diefenbaker) to replace highly pollutting coal-fired power plants at Estevan or Coronach, would you be for or against such a development?"
There is unfortunately a lot of controversy with the nuclear issue, so I have posted my answer below for others:
At the current rate of usage without building any new nuclear power plants, we would be out of domestic uranium in 40 years! With the soaring price of uranium (approx. $10/pound in the 1990's to appprox. $170/lb these days) and with industry making false claims that nuclear is green, many new plants are proposed around the world and five new plants in Canada as well.
Each gigawatt of nuclear energy requires 170 tonnes of uranium. When the uranium is processed into fuel, 250,000 tonnes of carbon are emitted for every 1000 megawatts produced. Nuclear energy produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases. There is no safe way to store the radioactive waste produced. Nuclear waste stays toxic for one million years! It is highly carcinogenic, and so are the routine emissions of nuclear power plants.
Consider the following information quoted below:
"The KiKK study commissioned by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection in Germany and made public on December 10th 2007 examined cancer rates in young children between 1980 and 2003. It showed a 60% increase in solid cancers and a 117% increase in leukemia among children up to five years of age living within 5 km of 16 German nuclear reactors. It also found a 20-40% increase for all cancers in children living within a 50 km radius of the plants. These nuclear power plants were operating under normal conditions, with radiation releases well within levels allowed for civilian populations."
I just lost my seventeen year-old cousin to cancer. When are we going to start taking responsibilty for our actions and start addressing any known causes of this cancer epidemic?! I have to represent our party's position on nuclear strongly, for Jen.
The quoted info above continues:
"The new evidence from Germany of an association between increased cancers and proximity to nuclear facilities raises difficult questions. Should pregnant women and young children be advised to move away from them? Should local residents eat vegetables from their gardens? And, crucially, shouldn't those governments around the world who are planning to build more reactors think again?"
I do not support and can not support a nuclear power plant being built in Saskatchewan, especially nearby. I hope you won't--can't, either.
As for coal, leave it in the ground! The health consequences from coal are completely awful too, and the effects to the environment from coal are HORRIBLE! That is why we must shift away from non-renewable resources (like uranium) and make the transition to a healthy, just and sustainable energy future.
All of Canada's uranium is mined in Saskatchewan, and 85% of it is exported to the U.S. In a recent book on the war in Afghanistan by Jack Warnock, he writes the following:
"Depleted uranium (DU) is produced during the uranium enrichment process. The U-235 used to produce fuel for reactors that generate electricity is removed, leaving the U-238 isotope. The remaining material is extremely dense and increases the penetration capability of weapons; it is used in the warheads of missiles and bombs. On impact the shell, with its uranium and traces of americium and plutonium, vaporizes, generating very tiny particles of radioactive dust. When this is inhaled it stays in the body, emitting radiation. The DU used in US weapons comes from the uranium mines in Saskatchewan.
Thousands of DU bombs and missiles have been used by US forces in the Afghan and Iraq wars. A typical bunker bomb contains 1.7 tons of depleted uranium."
I shudder to think of what we have done to the health of too many inncocent civilians in Afganistan, most of which are women and children. We all deserve a chance at a healthy life. This is not the legacy that I want Saskatchewan to have. We can't control the uranium mined here once we ship it south of the border. Nuclear is an international security threat and is destroying ecosystems too.
Plus, Saskatchewan's uranium is mined using dirty coal in Texas. How does this make nuclear better than coal? NEITHER should be an option, especially when we have more wind and solar power generating capacity than anywhere else in the world, right here in Saskatchewan!
I am a young women. I have to think of future generations. If I don't, who will? Certainly not Harper!
Can nuclear power meet our energy needs and be the solution to climate change? Not when one considers the cost, pollution and threat to global security associated with nuclear power.The Green Party believes that choices should be economically rational. The best energy choices to respond to the climate crisis should be those that deliver the greatest reduction of GHG per dollar invested. By this criterion, nuclear energy is among the very worst options. Reactors cost billions of dollars, take more than a decade to build, operate unreliably after about the first dozen years of operation, and only produce one type of energy: electricity. Even if the industry were “green and clean” as claimed by the pro-nuclear propaganda efforts, it fails on the economics. Nevertheless, it is neither clean nor green.
I'm sorry that we can not support nuclear to appease your opinion, but I can not lie to yourself or others about this issue. I am too honest by nature, and our children deserve no less.
Peace and Solidarity,
Larissa Shasko