Dear Editor,
What does the nuclear crises in Japan, Chernobyl and our federal election have in common?
Mr. Harper’s administration has been responsible for Canada’s Chalk river nuclear facility, which had two Maple reactors that were unstable during normal operation plus a fifty year old reactor that was 20 years beyond its expected lifespan.
During Mr. Harper’s watch, Canada’s nuclear safety regulator Linda Keen correctly understood that the consequence from operating an unstable reactor could be grave. For example, the Chernobyl nuclear plant – although much larger than ours in Chalk River – had the same critical flaw evident in the Maple Reactors. When the Chernobyl reactor ran out of control it irradiated half of Eastern Europe. Similarly, Japan’s nuclear crises contaminated the ground water and sea within 30Km of their plant. Even stable reactors can be critically dangerous when damaged or in disrepair. Accordingly, Linda Keen would not license our reactors until properly fixed.
However, Mr. Harper’s administration would not fund a proper fix . Instead, the Harper administration fired the nuclear safety regulator because she would not license the operation of either unstable reactors or one in disrepair.
A vote for Mr. Harper is a vote for poor judgment and personal attacks over responsible management – even in matters of nuclear safety.
Eugene Parks – Victoria BC
Broken election promises, election fraud, contempt of parliament, crooked advisors, bald face lying…..why should neglect of nuclear safety surprise you.
Well said, Mr. Parks. Clearly Harper & Co are a major liability to our country and have to be removed as soon as possible.
The political battles between the CNSC and AECL and Hydro are a huge part of what happened at Chalk River. There are more than a few cracks in a reactor that went wrong there.
The isotopes manufactured in the facility can also be manufactured at the Mc Master Nuclear facility in Hamilton. This would not be a bad idea as it has the potential to earn revenue for post secondary education. Of course it would need to be addressed and implemented properly
The leak at Chalk River did not exceed any of the safety parameters set out by the CNSC. The amounts of hard water were contained and about 5%-10% evaporated. All of which did not exceed the ppm or micro-severts leakage into the environment as set out by the CNSC.
Was Harper right?, When you are pushed by Crown Corporations that do not play well together…..It is hard to say.
I do know had the facility not faced a second incident this discussion would not be happening. So is it fair judgment using hindsight?
No as hind sight is always 20/20