Radiological Evaluation and Action Project

Nuclear Waste Management Organization

49 Jackes Avenue First Floor

Toronto Ontario Canada M4T 1E2

Tel 416.934.9814

Toll Free 1.866.249.6966 (within Canada)

Fax 416.934.9526

To Whom This Concerns:

Please consider my statement.

Though, not being from Canada, but a life long resident in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States of America, I write to you to let you know of some of my concern regarding the potential disposition of massive amounts in quantity & intensity of radioactive wastes, "low level" as well as high level in this waterway & water shed & aquifer we all share.

The GREAT LAKES waterways in North America, as you undoubtedly know, somehow, are approximately one fifth of the planet Earths' above ground "fresh" water... ("fresh" in quotes, because they are already in various troubles: Origins in point & nonpoint source contaminations of various chemical manufacture & or release, warming from industrial processes, exotic, invasive plant & animal species, soil erosion, deposition, etc.).

In this mix of miracle (the Great Lakes Basin & inhabitants) & potential & actual misery... there are approximately 60 some facilities mining (active or inactive), generating, manufacturing (actively operating or passively, i.e. shut down), containing & or causing planned or unplanned exposures, of ionizing radiation to these areas & well beyond in almost unknowable dimensions.

Therefore, with this current prospect of a hopefully appropriately well considered decision as to what to do with the products, or by products of this ionizing radiation, which will likely determine important course, for all time left to humans on planet Earth... The first order for me is to basically declare my solidarity with the people in Canada closest to the situation most directly, Canada s' Nuclear Waste Watch, "A network of Organizations Concerned about High Level Radioactive Waste and Nuclear Power in Canada."

I therefore submit (below), their statement, with which I give my I whole hearted support, for your re-review.

"1. The first priority of responsible waste management is reduction at source. High level radioactive waste in Canada can only be reduced at source through a binding commitment to the early phaseout of nuclear power. Early nuclear phaseout means that there would be no new reactors and no major refurbishment of reactors to prolong their current life spans.

2. Neither the safety nor the acceptability of deep geological disposal of radioactive waste in perpetuity was established to the satisfaction of the federal environmental assessment panel (the Seaborn Panel) that reviewed the evidence. Any waste management option should, for the foreseeable future, be based on surface and/or near-surface monitored and retrievable storage -- at least until a nuclear power phaseout has been achieved, the technical case for an alternative option (or options) has been thoroughly reviewed, and a social consensus has been achieved.

3. The Seaborn Panel called for the creation of a nuclear fuel waste management agency, at arm's length from the nuclear industry, with its board of directors representative of independent, key stakeholders. In direct opposition to this, the government created the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) with its board comprised solely of nuclear industry representatives. The nuclear industry strongly supports deep geological disposal of radioactive waste, so the ability of the NWMO to make an objective recommendation is questionable.

4. Given the importance of this issue to present and future generations of Canadians, the government should guarantee a joint federal/provincial environmental assessment panel on the full range of radioactive waste management options following the NWMO recommendation in November 2005. The process should be adequately funded by the proponents in order to allow public interest intervenors to retain independent technical expertise. The federal government should also guarantee a full parliamentary debate and free vote on the recommendations of the NWMO and the environmental assessment panel.

5. If the Government of Canada decides on any kind of centralized waste management option (whether above or below ground), there will be risk to communities along the transportation route, as well as to the potential recipient community. In such a case, the potential recipient and transport route communities should all have veto power, and should receive funding from proponents for independent research and community education.

6. The Canadian Government should guarantee that Canada will not import high level radioactive waste.

Adopted November 2003

Amended March 2, 2004 "

I found, recently a letter from the eminent scientist-physician, key participant in the Manhattan Project, Dr. John Gofman, which, in my humble opinion, bears some repeating, periodically and especially at such a critical time at nuclear crossroad decision regarding matters that needed far more consideration than they were given at the OUTSET of the nuclear project.

Letters to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal,

"November 14, 1993

Dear Editor:

When 400 members of the American Association for Cancer Research were polled, 73 percent ranked nuclear power "minor" in terms of number of cancers it causes, according to S. R. Lichter ("Why Cancer News Is a Health Hazard," Nov. 12, p.A-14). Lichter seems to think that anti-cancer activists should focus narrowly on the human carcinogens which may account for the cancers TODAY.

We wish to add, emphatically, that intelligent people also work to prevent causes which rank low today from BECOMING causes of high rank in future years. In terms of human rights, economics, and simple kindness, it is far better to PREVENT additional pollution by a human carcinogen (and ionizing radiation is a proven one) than to wait until it develops a high rank in number of cancer-cases already inflicted. If the surveyed experts rank nuclear power low as a cause of today's cancers, let's give appreciable credit to the public pressure which has greatly helped keep the use of nuclear power very much smaller and cleaner today than was planned 30 years ago.

Very truly yours,

John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. Chairman,

Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco.

Author, scholarly books on health effects from ionizing radiation (1981, 1985, 1990).

Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, Univ. of California, Berkeley.

Founder (1963), BioMedical Research Div. of the Livermore Nat'l Lab.; Asst. Dir. 1963-69" With this most serious matter, I would only add another of Dr. Gofman's basic principle for temporal matter concerning the potential to dramatically (albeit oft subtle) alter the human or non human landscape: "The cautionary principle." Exclude not the fullest implications of your acts (or non acts, either way).

Please keep me informed of your proceedings.

Thanks for your sincere attention.

Henry W. Peters


Radiological Evaluation and Action Project,

Great Lakes, (REAP, GL)

Rt. 1, Box 193

Ewen, MI 49925

(906) 988-2352

Have some feedback for us?

Send Feedback