UPDATED: Nuke reactor @ Diefenbaker Lake?

Good grief! Let’s put the deadliest poison we can find in the ground — uranium — and move it to a lake so we can pollute more people and ecosystems! Oh ya! Fun-fun, eh?

Hello, people! The nuclear system is not one we want to build up in Saskatchewan! We want a moratorium, like B.C. has just declared. Let’s be smart about our environment and about our children’s future!

Here’s the CBC piece (reproduced below) that has me riled. Here’s the SaskPower report, the one the SaskParty couldn’t find.

UPDATE: A confidential source has revealed that a physicist from Chalk River (and we all know about that scandal) says that the new reactors — 4 of them are proposed — are cleaner and greener than any coal plant in operation. What the physicist failed to mention was the environmental devastation wreaked by a nuclear power plant, the fact that there is no disposal for the deadly waste products, and the huge economic costs of building a nuclear plant.

Lake Diefenbaker region preferred site for nuclear plant: SaskPower report
Last Updated: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 | 11:51 AM CT Comments11Recommend11
CBC News

SaskPower’s preferred location for a nuclear power plant is near Lake Diefenbaker in central Saskatchewan, CBC News has learned.

The information is contained in a consultant’s report prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the Crown utility last year.

CBC News has obtained a copy of the report, which was written in February 2007. The report says a power plant at Elbow, near Lake Diefenbaker, would be preferable to other potential sites.

“Potentially, the Lake Diefenbaker region could be the site of a Candu 6 plant configured with two steam turbine generators instead of the standard 750-megawatt, single-steam turbine unit,” the report said. “Plant output from this option would be split equally between Saskatchewan and Alberta.”

The report cites the area’s large water supply, which is needed for generating nuclear power.

It also mentions that the site would be near populated areas, reducing the need to transmit power over long distances.
More study needed, report says

However, the report also cautions that roughly 40 per cent of Saskatchewan people get their drinking water from the Lake Diefenbaker watershed.

The Lac La Loche area was also considered in the report, because it’s near a potential oilsands development in northwestern Saskatchewan. The proposal was for a cogeneration plant that would produce electricity and steam, with the assumption that the electrical output would be half that of a CANDU 6.

The study looked at environmental and cost factors, cooling-water requirements, exclusion zones, seismology, transmission systems, weather and geotechnical conditions.

Ultimately, the Lac La Loche area was not seen as the best choice.

The report recommends a further, more detailed study on Lake Diefenbaker before any final decision is made on the location of a power plant. It doesn’t make any recommendations about whether or not SaskPower should proceed with a nuclear plant.

The report was commissioned by the previous NDP administration.

Before he was elected premier, Brad Wall promised to make the report public, but the government has not yet done so.

On Wednesday, a government spokesperson confirmed the authenticity of the report. However, the government had decided not to make it public, the spokesperson said.

4 thoughts on “UPDATED: Nuke reactor @ Diefenbaker Lake?

  1. Geeze Wall, why not make the report public as promised? Wimp?

    “the deadliest poison we can find in the ground”
    Not sure it’s THE deadliest, but it’s certainly not something we should risk exposing 40% of our population to directly. I wonder if they considered further up the Sask River, near the Manitoba border (thus exposing fewer people in an accident)? That has the major drawback of being far from delivery to Calgary and Edmonton (which sounds like why Lake Dief is the “winner”).

  2. Well, it’s public now. Courtesy the CBC.

    Name a substance more deadly that is extracted from the earth and is more deadly than uranium. Please.

    Talked to a reporter from a newspaper in the northern states and folks there are a little worried.

  3. “northern states and folks there are a little worried.”

    Why? They’ve already got live bombs flying around South Dakota or maybe Minot by mistake last year… courtesy the US Gov’t. If anyone should be worried it’s Canadians of them.


    I’ll concede that you’re essentially correct that uranium is the most deadly natural toxin in the ground, since it’s closely related to the others like radium:
    “Scientist Dr. Gordon Edwards recently wrote, “Uranium ore bodies are among the deadliest mineral deposits on earth. They harbor large quantities of dangerous radioactive materials” (pacificfreepress.com). Radium, a decay product of uranium commonly found in uranium mine tailings piles, has been labeled by the British Columbia Medical Association as a superb carcinogen because microscopic quantities can cause bone and head cancers, anemia, and leukemia. Polonium-210, which is as radioactive as uranium and a billion times more toxic than cyanide, is a by-product of uranium mining and found in mine tailings. A uranium mine releases radon, which blankets the ground hundreds of miles downwind from a uranium mine as solid radioactive fallout.” http://www.nunnglow.com/impacts/

  4. Arsenic, Mercury, oilsands….there all toxic and deadly as well….Polonium is not of concern in the tailings from Sask mines up north…though Radium surely is…of course naturally occurring Radium is deadly as well and affects far more people than that from Uranium production.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s