x
Print This Post

Why we don’t want or need refurbishment or new builds of nuclear reactors in Ontario

By Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg

Reactor Problems, Energy Alternatives and Policy implications

As Prevent Cancer Now is dedicated to preventing cancer from environmental and occupational sources and promoting a safe clean environment for all life on earth, nuclear facilities emitting ionizing radiation should be of great concern to everyone engaged in cancer prevention. This article argues that there should be no further refurbishment or new builds of reactors unless there is an absolute guarantee of safety. It focuses on reactor problems, energy alternative and policy implications.

With an Ontario provincial election looming in the fall of 2011, a discussion is essential about clean and sustainable options to safeguard health and to limit climate change. Both the Liberal and Conservative Parties call for “full steam ahead” for nuclear power expansion, while the NDP and Greens argue for a more healthy sustainable policy. However, because the Liberals have initiated the successful Green Energy Act and Feed-in Tariff, which the Conservatives are now threatening to gut, there is reason to be concerned about the possible loss of this valuable program.

There is more than enough evidence for how Ontario can be nuclear-free, coal free and sustainable in the future. However, it will take political will to replace the billions of dollars predicted for nuclear power with energy efficiency, conservation and a wide variety of renewables.

The current nuclear energy situation in Ontario

Several years ago the government of Ontario announced plans to refurbish some older reactors in the province and build new ones at the existing site of the Darlington reactors on Lake Ontario. At the initiation of the Medical Officer of Health of the City of Toronto, the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council (ODWAC) held hearings in 2008 on radionuclides routinely discharged from nuclear reactors on Lake Ontario found in the drinking water of millions of people. At these hearings, many organizations called for zero discharge of radionuclides into the drinking water within 5 years based on the Precautionary Principle of requiring proof of safety beforehand. Some recommended that, if the new standards could not be achieved, existing reactors be phased out and decommissioned and no new reactors built.

The ODWAC final report (2) called for a major reduction in the amount of allowable tritium and enunciated a long-held position that nuclear power is a toxic and expensive mistake that requires an orderly and determined phase out for the sake of ensuring both cancer prevention and the availability of public and private resources for developing a green energy future for Ontario.

The Darlington New Builds: In the spring of 2011, a federally-named Joint Review Panel held hearings on the proposed Darlington New Builds, despite the fact that no one yet knows what reactor type is being proposed. These are new reactors with new designs – all new prototypes which have not yet been used – good reasons for caution.

Many deputations opposed these new builds. Several deputations noted that the new (Generation lll) reactors are likely to pose different though even more serious problems, since they will use enriched uranium whose even more toxic and long lived radioactive wastes have not been accounted for. Others related to costs, energy, waste, possible malfunctions and terrorism and called for a halt in the nuclear expansion program in light of the need to examine safety issues in light of the tragedy continuing to unfold in Fukushima during the last 5 months. Some also called for a phase out and decommissioning of nuclear reactors and allocation of the billions of dollars slated for nuclear refurbishment of old reactors and the construction of new ones to the sustainable future required for a safer healthier future.

To add to these concerns, there had been no public assessment, during this review, of the need for or alternatives to the Darlington expansion to justify such a project. Many noted that the public should be extremely concerned that if expansion goes ahead, it will lock Ontario into nuclear dependence for many years to come because of the financial, policy and infrastructure support needed to implement it.

These concerns resulted in a proposal by a consortium led by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) for the cancellation of the Darlington New Build hearings, stating that Fukushima raised two significant issues that are not being addressed within the scope of the current review: Canada’s approach to nuclear safety, including risks of accidents, consequences, and emergency planning; and, a transparent evaluation of alternatives to the Darlington New build project. The proposal emphasized the futility of the hearings at this time, in light of Fukushima, and stated:

“….The accident we are witnessing…reminds us that nuclear power comes with the potential to cause irreversible harm to the environment and our society…in the context of this review, that would require an examination of non-nuclear alternatives for producing electricity. Such an examination has been precluded from this review and no such public review has been undertaken by the provincial government.”( 3)

It is now well known that clean energy technologies are evolving quickly and are already more cost effective than nuclear plants, (see Lovins below) so we must ask, is it not prudent to promote more of such sustainable energy options?

Refurbishment of the Darlington reactor site: Regarding the refurbishment planned for the Darlington reactor site, in July, 2011 a consortium of 24 non-government organizations sent an urgent request to Michael Binder, President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) on the Darlington Life-Extension Review in light of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. They requested that the scope, transparency and public participation of the proposed environmental and safety reviews for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) proposal to refurbish and extend the life of the Darlington nuclear station be significantly expanded and modified.

In light of Fukushima, it was deemed unacceptable that the $8 – 14 billion refurbishment undergo the lowest level environmental review with no opportunity for the public to scrutinize the safety reviews and upgrades required for the station’s continued operation.

They argued that the proposed process flouts past convention and undermines transparency, and asked for a public hearing on the scope and level of an environmental review as well as a new socially acceptable approach to refurbishment safety reviews that include public participation and proactive information disclosure, noting

While the CNSC and OPG, not surprisingly, provided public assurances regarding the safety of the refurbishment, the consortium believes that the Fukushima disaster has exposed failings in both Darlington’s design and the CNSC’s approach to safety. They insisted that the project be transparently and rigorously reviewed before any approval, highlighting at least four issues from the Fukushima disaster that have been inadequately addressed or ignored by the CNSC and OPG:

  1. Darlington’s Multi-Reactor Design. The Fukushima disaster demonstrates the threats posed by a multi-reactor nuclear station if multiple reactor accidents take place concurrently. Unlike the Fukushima nuclear station, the multi-reactor Darlington station shares safety and support systems among four reactors, increasing the risk of radiation releases in the event of a multi-reactor accident. Due to this risk, multi-unit stations like Darlington that share safety systems are not permitted under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines (Note b).This serious design flaw must be publicly addressed before any approval is given to extending the life of Darlington.
  2. Earthquake Vulnerabilities: The Fukushima nuclear station was not designed to withstand a magnitude 9 earthquake because such an event was deemed “improbable” by the Japanese regulator and the operator. This points to a problem with using probabilities to dismiss certain types of accident scenarios. It also highlights the double standard in earthquake design-resistance being applied at the Darlington nuclear station. The new reactors OPG hopes to build at Darlington are to be designed to withstand movement of 0.3 G (peak ground acceleration), which approximates a magnitude 6 earthquake. The existing Darlington reactors, however, were only designed to withstand 0.08% G, almost four times less than OPG deems necessary for its new plant on the same site. This is a significant design flaw calling for a full and transparent review of the existing Darlington reactors’ safety before any approval of the refurbishment is permitted, especially since several geologists’ reports (4) indicate that the area is an earthquake zone.
  3. The CNSC’s Approach to Nuclear Safety: As noted, the Fukushima disaster calls into question the CNSC’s use of probabilities to dismiss or ignore certain classes of accident threats or vulnerabilities in determining the safety of nuclear stations. Former CNSC president Linda Keen has publicly stated that Fukushima teaches us that nuclear regulators must now be prepared against… low-probability events that are typically dismissed or ignored by the CNSC’s approach to nuclear safety (Note c). It is noteworthy that the CNSC has historically prevented the publication of the risk studies used to dismiss and ignore certain types of accident events. In light of Fukushima, this significant weakness in the CNSC’s approach to nuclear safety and information disclosure must be addressed and corrected before any approval is made for the Darlington refurbishment.
  4. Used-Fuel Storage. The Fukushima disaster has also exposed the vulnerability of used-fuel storage facilities in accident situations. These previously unexamined vulnerabilities and the CNSC’s failure to require increased terrorist resistance of radioactive waste facilities at Darlington a decade after September 11th is a significant concern. Given that the refurbishment will continue to produce and stockpile radioactive fuel waste at Darlington for decades, it is essential to properly and transparently address and mitigate the risks of used fuel storage facilities in upcoming safety and environmental reviews. Any acceptable reviews must be prepared to openly discuss these risks and propose significant modifications to the design in order to eliminate or minimize them. Significant environmental issues have already been excluded from the scope environmental review by CNSC staff without any public accountability.

Finally the consortium reminded the CNSC that all Canadians assume the risks for nuclear accidents. Canadian nuclear operators, suppliers and vendors have asked for special protection from the federal government in case of a Fukushima-scale accident. They requested such protection in the form of the Nuclear Liability Act because they know Fukushima-scale accidents in Canada are a realistic possibility. As long as Canadians assume the risk of nuclear accidents at the Darlington station, Canadians should have the right to scrutinize and demand changes to OPG’s refurbishment proposal

They said the CNSC should abandon its currently proposed low-level review of the refurbishment, hold a public hearing on the scope and level of environmental review, including whether the project should be referred to a federal panel review. In addition, such a hearing should consider proposals for a new more socially acceptable approach to reactor safety reviews that will include public participation and proactive information disclosure.

Notes: (a).The CNSC held public hearings on the environmental assessment guidelines for past refurbishment reviews on Pickering B and Bruce A, (b).The IAEA’s design guide states that: «Structures, systems and components important to safety shall generally not be shared between two or more reactors in nuclear power plants». International Atomic Energy Agency, Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Design, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. NS-R-1 (Vienna: IAEA, September 2000). (c) Anna Mehler Paperny , “Nuclear plants aim for enhanced safety,” The Globe and Mail, Thu May 5 2011, A5

Sustainable Energy Policies: No Need for Nuclear or Coal for Electricity-Negawatts and Renewables Instead

Amory Lovins, Cofounder, Chairman, and Chief Scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute, cogently presents sustainable possibilities.. While Lovins describes the U.S context, the opportunities are similar for the Canadian one as well as many others:

  1. Electricity-saving technologies are getting better and cheaper faster than we’re applying them, so efficiency is an ever bigger and cheaper resource. New techniques for integrative design can even make very big savings cost less than small or no savings, yielding not diminishing but expanding returns.

  2. Electricity production is shifting rapidly and profoundly from giant coal- and gas-fired and nuclear plants to “micropower”- cogenerating electricity together with useful heat in factories and buildings, plus renewables (not counting big hydro dams). Micropower in 2006 made one sixth of the world’s electricity and one third of the world’s new electricity. The U.S. lagged with just 7 percent, but a dozen other industrial countries made from one-sixth to more than half their electricity with micropower.

  3. U.S. wind power additions in 2007 exceeded total U.S. coal-power additions for 2003–07, and exceeded global nuclear additions. So did wind additions in Spain and in China, which had distributed renewable capacity seven times bigger and growing seven times faster than nuclear capacity. In 2008, distributed renewables worldwide added 40 billion watts and got $100 billion of private investment, while nuclear added and got zero; the world invested more in renewable than in fossil-fueled generation. These decentralized competitors make cheaper electricity, build faster, and have less financial risk than big, slow, lumpy power plants, so they can better attract private capital despite their generally smaller subsidies.

  4. Consider the verdict of the marketplace. From August 2005 to August 2008, the U.S. nuclear industry enjoyed the most robust political support and capital markets in history, plus new subsidies (on top of old ones) rivaling or exceeding new plants’ total construction cost; yet it couldn’t attract a penny of private equity investment in any of 33 proposed projects. There is no business case for building nuclear plants or other central power plants.

  5. Status of nuclear plants worldwide. Of the 56 nuclear plants under construction worldwide, 13 have been under construction for over 20 years, 24 have no official start date, most are late, 40 are in just four centrally planned systems (China, Russia, India, South Korea), all are bought by central planners (generally with a draw on the public purse), and none are competitive free-market purchases. Nuclear power requires central planning, but even the world’s most impressively planned nuclear enterprise, in France, suffered 3.5-fold real capital cost escalation and nearly doubled construction times (1970–2000). Nuclear development is rife with spiraling costs and bad economics.

  6. Commercial collapse of nuclear. Nuclear power’s global commercial collapse is good for both our wallets and our security. Nuclear power’s collapse is also good for climate protection. If greenhouse-gas emissions are a problem, we need the most solution per dollar and per year; anything less will reduce and retard climate protection. We need judicious, not indiscriminate, investment – best buys first. We don’t need everything, we can’t afford everything, and every dollar and year we spend on one choice excludes other choices.

  7. Involving business in the transition. The Rocky Mountain Institute is mapping and driving the business-led transition from oil and coal to efficiency and renewables. Its most novel effort is an in-depth exploration, with utility partners, of the shape, stability, economics, and business models of the emergent distributed and renewable power grid. In this new world of IT- driven electricity systems, an encouraging surprise is emerging. Just as better alternatives displaced Victorian steam locomotives, mainframe computer centers, and giant relays-and-copper phone exchanges, so we no longer need to keep building big power plants to keep the lights on. Both steady renewable sources (geothermal, small hydro, waste-and biomass combustion, solar-thermal-electric, etc.) and variable ones (wind and photovoltaics) can be diversified in type and location, forecasted, and integrated so they power a modern society with even greater reliability and resilience than today. In Ontario, getting off coal by 2014 is used as an excuse for nuclear power expansion. However, Lovins suggests the rough percentage of U.S. coal-fired electricity that can be displaced by the changes he recommends; the scenarios may be similar here. That should be a rich enough menu to create a profitable and politically attractive portfolio.

  8. An economically conservative, market-based national energy strategy is possible, and it would allow and require all ways to save or produce energy to compete fairly, at honest prices, regardless of their type, technology, size, location, or ownership.

So we might ask: why this is not happening more in Canada, how can we better promote it and what are some barriers?

Politics and Policy – A Reminder of Reality

Most members of the public and indeed most policy makers are unfamiliar with the health impacts of radioactive emissions at each stage of the nuclear fuel chain from uranium mining, refining, fuel fabrication, reactor operations, production of low and high level waste and transportation of radioactive materials on our highways. Dr. Rudi Nussbaum, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Environmental Sciences at Portland State University, exposes the nuclear and radiation health establishments. In 2007, he wrote, “Industry, government, and the military have systematically suppressed or manipulated epidemiologic research showing detrimental effects on human health from accidental or occupational exposures to ionizing radiation. This leads to conflicts of interest and compromised integrity among scientists in the radiation health establishment, it stifles dissemination of “unwelcome” findings and endangers public health.” (5)


Pickering Nuclear Power Plant outside of Toronto, Ontario

Since the nuclear industry and supportive governments routinely deny the health impacts of these carcinogens, it is critical that they be made widely known. Nuclear issues are related to vested corporate interests and are political. They must, therefore, be dealt with politically.

WHO agreement: Few public health physicians and scientists are aware of the fact that the World Health Organization (WHO), the most prestigious public health institution in the world, is bound by a 1959 agreement (ostensibly for lack of radiation expertise within WHO) to refrain from conducting or publishing any radiation health assessment without approval by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an agency with a mandate to promote nuclear power. This is consistent with the many misleading press releases and reports issued by these agencies downplaying the legacy of disease and death left by Chernobyl. (6)

Managing public perception: Dr. Robert Jacobs of the Hiroshima Peace Institute said (of Fukushima) that “In these situations, managing public opinion is as serious an operation as managing the crisis itself. …….So to continue telling people about that leak will cause higher levels of distress and perception reflects that neither TEPCO (the Japanese nuclear company) nor the government is in control of the situation. So it’s easier to reduce the amount of information the public has so you can control the situation at least from the point of view of public opinion and to keep people from panicking.” (6)

Who pays the price –“Voodoo Economics”: In July 2011, the Canadian government sold Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) to SNC-Lavalin for a pittance. In “Market offers verdict on nuclear option” Paul Hanley, wrote (8), Don’t you wish you could have bought Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) from the federal government? Had you been the buyer, you would have pocketed $60 million from the transaction…. it’s the kind of deal that is normal in the weird world of nuclear energy. ……… Canadian taxpayers have put more than $20 billion into AECL since 1952, when it was incorporated, and lost money on that investment in each of the subsequent 59 years. More than a billion has been poured in over the last four years alone. Canadians have paid through the nose to support the nuclear option, and most Canadians don’t even use nuclear power. Unfortunately, Canadian taxpayers will continue to pay for nuclear power for centuries to come.

The only way SNC would buy a white elephant like AECL was if the government (i.e. the public) retained the company’s liabilities of $4.5 billion. Furthermore, the public will have to pay to decommission existing AECL reactors when that time comes and to dispose of and manage the nuclear waste that will, for all intents and purposes, remain dangerous forever. We will also be required to pay any cost overruns from past and current AECL projects, such as the estimated $1 billion owed on the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant in New Brunswick. Ontarians are still paying down a 19 billion dollar debt left behind by nuclear projects built decades ago. It’s a regular charge on their Hydro bills.

This nonsense may seem weird to you and me, but voodoo economics is the norm for the nuclear industry. The fact that the government had to pay someone to take the company off their hands proves the argument, made most forcefully by Amory Lovins – nuclear power does not work in a market economy because it cannot make a profit; nuclear power only works when the public shoulders the costs and long-term risks.

Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, reports that all costs in, nuclear power from CANDU plants costs 21 cents per kilowatt hour, whereas it is possible to buy hydro power for six cents a kWh and to produce negawatts for four cents a kWh. (Negawatts is a term for making more power available by reducing energy waste.) Gibbons points out it would be possible to build a virtual nuclear power plant using the negawatts approach for one-fifth the cost of the real thing, with no long term waste to contend with. Nor do we risk disaster, the possibility that the impossible might happen, as it did when the Fukushima reactors melted down, with anticipated clean up costs of $100 billion over the next 100 years.

Changes are afoot. Some scientists, governments, and significant elements of the business community agree that it is possible to build a low carbon, sustainable, global energy economy. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report stated that 80 per cent of global energy needs could come from renewable energy by 2050. The constraint in making this a reality is not technology, land area, or resources but political will, the IPCC concluded. If we could transfer the political will that has been devoted to nuclear for all these years to renewables we can achieve that goal.

As Mark Winfield has written, the Harper government has been clear about its desire to off-load the AECL financial “sinkhole” (in the words of a former press secretary) for some time. With more than a decade since AECL’s last sale of a new reactor, the failure of the $800 million MAPLE isotope reactor project, the controversy over the shutdown and safety of the NRU reactor at Chalk River, delays and cost overruns on power reactor refurbishment projects in Ontario and New Brunswick, and a perpetual need for annual bailouts running into the hundreds of millions, the federal government has decided to cut its losses.

The strongest response to the sale… is predictably from Ontario, whose long-term electricity plan includes as many as four new CANDUs at the Darlington nuclear power station east of Toronto. The province, reeling from the reported $26 billion “sticker shock” of AECL’s “all in” cost bid for just two new CANDUs, had been demanding that the federal government “share” some of this cost. Any cost-sharing options with the federal government, which probably anticipated questions from its western Canadian base about why federal taxpayers from Alberta and B.C. should pay for nuclear reactors for Ontario, are now off the table.

The case for new reactors in Ontario was already shaky, given the decline in electricity demand over the past five years and the strong response of renewable energy developers to the province’s Green Energy Act. In the context of the Fukushima disaster, the federal environmental assessment hearings on a Darlington new-build project that wrapped up last month took on a distinct air of unreality. Jurisdictions around the world are now reassessing the role of nuclear in their long-term energy strategies. The case for Ontario to do the same is now stronger than ever. The renewable energy supply and services industry in Ontario that is emerging in response to the Green Energy Act has already made up for the 800 jobs that are likely to be lost in the immediate aftermath of the AECL sale many times over.

Rather than continuing to make an increasingly hopeless case to the federal government for support for its nuclear-based plans, Ontario should be seeking federal investments for the creation of a truly national electricity grid. Such an undertaking is far more likely to win backing from other provinces and would enable Ontario to connect its enormous, but intermittent, wind energy potential with those provinces that have large-scale hydroelectric storage capacity.

Similar arrangements are being employed among countries in Northern Europe to facilitate the large-scale integration of intermittent renewable energy sources into their electricity grids. In Canada, such arrangements could provide the foundations of a sustainable national electricity system.

The AECL sale compels Ontario to revisit its long-term electricity plans, and to embark on a serious and open review of the full range of alternatives in the future design of its electricity system. The province needs to face this reality and respond accordingly.

What Must Be Done Now:

Canada has legal and policy commitments to sustainable development. These include the health of the planet that we depend on and are a part of. If approved, the Darlington Refurbishment and New Build projects would create unnecessary environmental and human health crises for future generations. They would also generate high level wastes in addition to those already being produced, with no safe management solutions. They will be a problem for millions of years, despite millions of tax dollars and many years of research and consultations with numerous informed professionals and concerned citizens.

With the tragedy in Fukushima Japan comes some hope for the future. Many encouraging actions are appearing in countries previously committed to nuclear energy, such as Germany, Switzerland, Italy, (now according to statements from) Japan and others. There is much to be done to ensure the sustainable safe clean energy future we want, and there are many opportunities to work toward that goal in Ontario.

It is crucial to maintain the Green Energy Act and Feed in Tariff (FIT) programs now underway (the Ontario Conservatives are threatening to gut this, if elected). Our electoral strategy and campaigns must use this opportunity to promote these valuable programs.

We must make sure to challenge opponents of wind power and clarify its advantages. Turbines should not be built where they are not wanted; however, they are much needed and should be located where they can be built without opposition.

We cannot do it alone. There are many organizations and actions to join with such as the signatories to the letter to the CEO of the Nuclear Safety Commission.

Signatories

  • Canadian Environmental Law Association
  • Eco justice (formerly Sierra Legal Defence)
  • International Institute of Concern for Public Health, Canadian Association of Physicians For the Environment, Ontario
  • Northwatch
  • Sierra Club Canada
  • Earthroots
  • Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
  • The Council of Canadians (Ontario & Quebec)
  • Provincial Council of Women of Ontario
  • Movement Vert Mauricie
  • Movement Sortons le Quebec du Nucleaire
  • National Farmers Union- Ontario
  • Ontario Clean Air Alliance
  • Lake Ontario Waterkeepers
  • York Region Environmental Alliance
  • Safe and Green Energy
  • Sierra Youth Coalition
  • Citizens Environmental Alliance of Southwestern Ontario
  • Durham Environmental Watch
  • Greenpeace Canada
  • Greenspiration

Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg MES PhD is a Board Member of Prevent Cancer Now. She is Volunteer Education Coordinator for the Women’s Healthy Environments Network (WHEN), and lecturer in Environmental Health at OISE/UT. She was Executive Producer of the film Toxic Trespass, an NFB Co Production on children’s health and the environment, and she was Associate Producer and Principal Research Consultant of “Exposure: Environmental Links to Breast Cancer. She is the mother of two and grandmother of three beautiful young girls. She can be reached at: dorothy.goldinrosenberg@utoronto.ca


SIDEBAR: “What can be saved by displacing coal-fired electricity”

  • 100 percent to 150 percent by using electricity in a way that saves money (even compared with just running an old coal plant even if the plant and grid were free)
  • 50 percent by building the wind power now stuck in the interconnection queue
  • Over 400 percent by building all cost-effective windpower in available sites
  • About 40 percent by allowing industrial cogeneration (plus more by cogenerating in buildings)
  • Over 100 percent by putting photovoltaics on 7 percent of U.S. structures
  • Probably over 50 percent from exploiting other renewables
  • About 35 percent, immediately if desired, by running coal plants less and existing though underused combined-cycle gas plants more, at an extra cost (around 2¢/kWh) less than one-fifth that of building new nuclear plants.

References:

  • “The Safety of Ontario’s Nuclear Reactors” (The Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs, 1980).
  • “Report of the Porter Commission” (on the increasing levels of radionuclides in the Great Lakes, 1978).
  • “Committee Examining Radiation Risk Internal Emitters,” (CERRI Report, UK, http://www.cerrie.org/).
  • Mangano, Joseph,” A Short Latency Between Radiation Exposure from Nuclear Plants and Cancer in Young Children.” International Journal of Health Services, Volume 36, Number 1, (113-135), 2006.
  • Rubin, Norman,” Excesses of Childhood Leukemia and Birth Defects Around CANDU Stations.” February 16, 1994.

Further References:

Footnotes:

  1. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Vll (BEIR), National Academy of Sciences, 2005.
  2. Tritium Report
  3. Canadian Environmental Law Association
  4. J L Wallach, A Mohajer and R L Thomas, “Linear zones, seismicity, and the possibility of a major earthquake in the intraplate western Lake Ontario area of eastern North America”, Can. J. Earth Sci., volume 35, pp 762-786, 1998.
  5. Eight Convenient Truths, Amory Lovins (Note: this piece originally appeared in Roll Call Nov. 9, 2009, in a slightly different form).
  6. Manipulating Public Health Research: The Nuclear and Radiation Health Establishments. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2007, 13:328-330) I Nussbaum, 20-24.
  7. The United Nations – WHO/IAEA Accord: WHA 12-40.
  8. Nuclear Collapse Looms? Fukushima No.4 reactor `leaning’ Dr. Robert Jacobs, Hiroshima Peace Institute speaking about the ongoing situation at Fukushima.
  9. Star Phoenix, July 12, 2011.
  10. Toronto Star, July 14, 2011.

 
Also in this issue on An Ounce …