Canadian uranium search will kill off the last Bushmen of Africa

Canada is now a superpower in the African mining sector.
According to the Ministry of Natural Resources Canada , only the Republic of South Africa, with over 35% of assets and investments, is just ahead of Canada in the African mining industry.

Canadian uranium search will kill off the last Bushmen of Africa thanks to Canada’s Xemplar Energy Corporation.

The Topnaar, a subtribe of the Nama minority, are southern Africa’s original hunter-gatherer San or Khoi-Khoi tribes — often referred to derogatively as Hottentots — who were pushed from their habitats around the Orange River in southern Namibia and northern South Africa in the mid nineteenth century by agriculturalist-settlers. Just like the Boers, the Topnaar also undertook a Great Trek north, led by their famous leader Jan Jonker Afrikaner. There are only about 60,000 Nama people left in all of Namibia. From DNA testing of 19th-century workers’ graves on Boer farms in South Africa in a Johannesburg University study, it has been established that these so-called ‘Bushmen’ indeed are the true forebears of the first Nation of southern Africa…

Canada has so much to be proud of these days, eh?  Ecological racism all over the planet…

Also being threatened is the ecologically-sensitive Garub-water hole — the main watering site for the giant Namib desert’s mysterious wild horses, the Shagyas, located inside this nature reserve about 120 km east of the Namibian harbour of Luderitz. The origin of the park’s protected desert horses is lost in time, the subject of endless speculation. Their DNA however links them to the Arabian Peninsula’s Shagyars horses.

Kill off people.  Kill off animals.  Just don’t kill off the right of Canadians to feed their greed.  Eh?

Harper nuking Canada

Begin forwarded message:

Subject: [Rad-waste] Unresolved questions remain about environmental implications and costs. (nuke waste)


Nuclear energy endorsement may be linked to tar sands and climate change pressure

Unresolved questions remain about environmental implications and costs.

Ottawa, June 18, 2007 ­ Why is the minority Conservative government proceeding on nuclear energy at a time when it is fighting to regain public support after a difficult spring?

Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn announced Friday the Harper government’s endorsement of nuclear power and its approval of going ahead with storing high-level radioactive waste underground.

“Really, what this will allow is a permanent storage and a deep geological depository,” Lunn said. “This is an important decision for the government of Canada. As you know, the nuclear industry is very, very important.”

For years, the lack of long-term disposal plans has hobbled the nuclear industry, which has lobbied heavily for burying waste deep. Canadians, however, have always said no when asked to have nuclear waste disposal sites in their communities. At the news conference, Lunn dismissed concerns raised by environmentalists about the risks of nuclear energy as well as economic concerns about safe storage plans.

“This is just the beginning of a long process but they (the industry) will be able to begin that process today. It will allow the fuel to be retrieved as technology moves forward and, more importantly, allow it to be monitored continuously as it’s going through the storage process.”

The announcement makes sense for three key corporate sectors: tar sands, nuclear and construction/development. With the government under pressure to do something about greenhouse gas emissions related to the growth of oil extraction in the Alberta tar sands, nuclear seems an ideal option.

In the June 8, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review, Rob Ainsworth, of the arch-right-wing Canadian LaRouche Youth Movement reports, as have others, of “a project in the Alberta tar sands to construct two 1,100-megawatt reactors, providing power to the area, as well as heat and steam for industrial purposes.” It takes an enormous amount of energy to extract oil from tar sands, and nuclear is been touted as a way to greatly reduce the amount of oil burned to support the process.

Every aspect of nuclear power development is both enormously expensive for governments and profitable for the corporations involved. “Most of the top engineering and heavy construction firms serve the energy sector in one form or another,” writes Vance Cariaga in Investor’s Business Daily. “Some go straight to the wellhead by offering design and management services for oil and gas production. Others build hydrocarbon processing plants, liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and nuclear power facilities.”

The licensing of more reactors would also be a great boon, at potentially greater public expense, to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, which has received subsidies of $17.5 billion over 50 years, according to the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout.

The Conservatives’ announcement allows existing reactor sites to continue accumulating waste indefinitely, and it initiates a search for an “informed community” willing to host a “deep repository” for burial of wastes. It will also explore moving wastes to a central location for temporary, shallow underground storage and recycling of nuclear fuel.

As Susan Riley writes in today’s Ottawa Citizen, “Apart from the experimental nature of the proposed solution, many hurdles remain ­ notably, finding a community desperate enough to become a nuclear dumping ground. It has been long supposed that some remote northern town would be the lucky winner, given the technological preference for disposing of the waste deep in the Canadian shield. But recent research suggests the sedimentary rock underlying much of southern Ontario would also be suitable. That said, the prospect of a bidding war between Oakville and Rosedale appears unlikely.”

With these plans, the Harper government has made an unequivocal commitment to nuclear power and ignores difficult issues of radioactive wastes that have never been resolved by scientists or the Canadian public. Nuclear power remains vulnerable to human carelessness, as well as deliberate acts of terrorism or other sabotage. Even the best-designed radioactive waste repository will leak and expose future generations to radiation. The federal environmental assessment panel concluded in 1998 that from a social perspective, the safety of deep geological disposal has not been adequately demonstrated, has never been officially contradicted or disproved.

“From a technical perspective, safety of the AECL concept has been on balance adequately demonstrated for a conceptual stage of development, but from a social perspective, it has not,” the report stated. “As it stands, the AECL concept for deep geological disposal has not been demonstrated to have broad public support.”

Nuclear power has left unresolved environmental problems in Canada. Uranium mining has killed Saskatchewan lakes. Processing uranium has created a permanent toxic legacy in the town of Port Hope, Ontario. CANDU reactors routinely release radioactive carbon dioxide and radioactive water contaminated with tritium during their operations, polluting air and water and jeopardizing human health, as confirmed last week in a report commissioned by Greenpeace Canada.

The government announcement reflects recommendations in a report by the government-appointed Nuclear Waste Management Association, which is largely made up of nuclear industry or ex-industry personnel. The Sierra Club of Canada’s Emilie Moorhouse said, “Its interests are not public health. Its interests are the promotion of this industry.”

Related individuals, organizations and significant events
Intensity-based targets promote oil industry frame

Harper Conservative vs. Public Values Frame
Long process / Unstoppable expansion
Green / Unresolved public safety questions
Economical / Massive subsidies

Links and sources
Feds back underground disposal of nuclear waste , Canadian Press, June 15, 2007
Susan Riley, Going nuclear by stealth , The Ottawa Citizen, June 18, 2007
The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Canadian LaRouche Youth Movement.
Rob Ainsworth, Will Canada Join the Rail and Nuclear Renaissance? , Executive Intelligence Review, June 8, 2007
Vance Cariaga, Heavy Construction Firms Busy Helping Thriving Energy Sector , Investor’s Business Daily, May 22, 2007
Tyler Hamilton, Hot granite and steam could clean up oil sands, Toronto Star, May 30, 2007
Environmental Assessment Report on High Level Waste Disposal Concept, 1998
Chinta Puxley, Radioactive tritium in Great Lakes puts kids at risk: study , London Free Press, June 13, 2007
Canadian Nuclear Subsidies: Fifty Years of Futile Funding, Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout

Posted: June 18, 2007 at


Rad-waste mailing list

ACTION: Baird in Regina

The inbox is the source of all activity these days.  Check this out and then the following:

psst…pass it on…

Greet Federal Environment Minister John Baird

5:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Canadian Italian Club
2148 Connaught Street, Regina

Bring banners, placards and noise-makers to make noise in support of a green Canada which meets its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol.

“Green is the colour,
The climate is the game
We’re all together
and reducing is our aim
So let’s all work to stop climate change
Saskatchewan Green Greeters is our name”

(adapted w/o permission)

Info gathered from here

Dr. Helen Caldicott in Saskatchewan

The push for nukes is huge right now.  There seems to be no regard, though, for the effects of Depleted Uranium.  It is good that Caldicott will be in Saskatchewan this spring.


Reason and Nuclear Power – Dr. Helen Caldicott


Saskatchewan is home to one of the largest deposits of uranium ore in the world.  Despite industry and government claims, nuclear power is not “clean and green.”   As Dr. Helen Caldicott shows in her new book, Nuclear Power is not the Answer, large amounts of fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed, to construct the concrete reactor buildings and transport and store the highly toxic waste.   The mill tailings that remain from the extraction of uranium emit radioactive elements to the air and water.  Adequate remediation (safe treatment of the tailings), if carried out by governments and the industry, would make the energy price of nuclear electricity unreasonable. (Dr. Helen Caldicott).


Widely regarded as one of the great public speakers of the era, Dr. Helen Caldicott (paediatrician) has demonstrated a consistent ability to galvanize people from all walks of life to believe in their own capacity to bring about positive change.   She is the single most articulate and passionate advocate of citizen action to remedy the nuclear and environmental crises.

  • Co-founded Physicians for Social Responsibility (organization awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1985)
  • Founded Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament
  • Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize by Linus Pauling, a Nobel Laureate
  • The Smithsonian Institute has named Dr. Caldicott as one of the most influential women of the 20 th Century.

Helen Caldicott in Saskatchewan

Tuesday, March 6, 2007
7 pm
Education Auditorium
University of Regina
Book signing to follow
Event and parking are free
For more information:
Phone: (306) 585-4117


Helen Caldicott in Saskatoon:
7:30 pm Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Third Avenue United Church
304 3rd Avenue North
(3rd Ave & 24th Street)
Event is free; donations accepted
For more information contact

Thursday, March 8, 2007Dr. Caldicott will participate in grand rounds at the University of Saskatchewan

The proceedings will be broadcast to several teaching hospitals throughout the province.

Climate Change, Government of Canada

11 months in office and there’s been no action from Ambrose and the Harperites on the issue of Climate Change.


The Clean Air Act was a waste of our tax money, unless the parties in Opposition can do something with it. Ambrose must be listening closely to what her family’s big oil and big ass big gas friends said as she formulated the death of our children’s future.

Thanks to where’d that bug go? for the lead.

The Road to Peace

Nettie Wiebe has been in Regina this week, speaking at various events.  Today she was one of the guest speakers at Making Peace With Earth, a conference linking peace and environmental issues.  Nettie took an interesting approach, being a farmer.  She spoke about peace and ecology in terms of human security.  And she focused on food as a key component of that human security.  This woman is our new Tommy Douglas.  She gets it.  She gets social justice.  She gets environmental issues.  She gets women’s issues, agricultural issues, peace issues.  She just gets it all.

Notes from Nettie’s Speech 

Food is about human security; we cannot live without it.  Food is also about community.  Yet, we rarely hear a word about it in our news of war, devastation, and destruction.

Human Security 

To feel secure as a human we need to be able to go to bed at night knowing that when we rise in the morning our basic needs will be met.  We need also to feel safe in our environment.  And, we need to be able to participate, in a meaningful way, in the shaping of our future.


In Palestine, however, people have been separated from not only the olive trees, but also from their water systems, by the building of the wall.  Trees have been uprooted, water systems have been destroyed, cisterns have been dug up.  This kind of destruction is just as lethal as property destruction.

Peace in the Middle East will not happen unless food, water and land are returned to proper production and people can return to it and live securely.


In Afghanistan, many have always been poor.  The land doesn’t look farmable.  However, there are fertile river valleys.  In fact, pre-conflict (1970s) Afghanistan was the world’s major exporter of dried fruits and nuts.  And they also exported olives and dates and were near self-sufficiency in grains.

All that was destroyed by war.  When war came, poppy production grew in leaps and bounds until the Taliban took over, turning the land back to grains.

The huge anti-drug initiative spearheaded by the USA is supported by Canada.  However, the government in Afghanistan and Afghan soldiers ar actively supporting poppy growing.  And, there are now rumours that the Taliban are telling farmers to grow poppies in protest to the invasion.

Canadian Deaths

The area in which Canadian troops are active in Afghanistan is the area in which “reconstruction” is occurring.  Canadian soldiers are guarding the building of a 100 meter wide and 4 kilometer long stretch of road in a fertile valley.  Tens of thousands of people were evacuated from this farming area in the middle of the growing season!

When they came home, they returned to complete destruction.  Crops were devastated, animals were gone or dead and, worst of all, the road permanently cut off the water supply.  The road that Canadians are helping to reconstruct has devastated farming and the security of the people living their.  Some engineer gave no thought to human security when designing the road, focussed instead on how to move military equipment from point A to point B.

The Canadian government has promised grain to help the people of the region, but food aid is not a long-term solution.  And since when has the Canadian military become an expert on building roads?  Incidently, the area is full of roads.  But the roads are winding roads and not suitable for the transport of military equipment.

This is not the road to peace.

The Road to Peace

The new highway in the fertile Afghan valley is not the road to peace.  The road to peace is stopping the destruction, is negotiating, not handing out candy.  The road to peace is rebuilding imaginations so that dreams can live, grow and thrive.  The road to peace is in coming to sit at the table — not in a drive-by, fast food agenda.  The road to peace is a long, winding, and uncertain road that runs through all those Afghan villages.  It is not a road we can rebuild and run.

We have a responsibility in Afghanistan, but it’s not a military one.  We have a responsibility here, at our own tables, to remember that what we do in the world gathers around other tables; it reflects us.  As such, we should gather humbly, thoughtfully and ask for peace.

Manufacturing Consent

Seems the NDP in SK are taking their campaign to mine more uranium to the next level. They’ve already manufactured consent within the provincial party. They’ve worked with the business community to create a clamour for it in some job-starved rural/northern communities. And, they’re offering incentives to AREVA (which has just formed a new joint venture with URENCO to create a Enrichment Technology Company. How convenient, now having been invited to build a uranium refinery in the province of Saskatchewan.)

My email friend, Ivan, says this:

I’d like to remind Mr. Calvert and Mr. Cline that when full cost accounting is used and not the voodoo economics of the uranium industry, Saskatchewan hasn’t made a single dime on uranium..

Uranium mines are abandoned ten years after shutting down and then go into the public domain. Our grandchildren pay for the security and for any future contamination from these highly dangerous sites. These future costs are conveniently ignored whenever expansion of any facet of the nuclear cycle is being promoted.

Spent reactors and refineries litter the world because no one knows what to do with them. They are so dangerous from radioactivity that their dismantling costs are phenomenal and there still is no where to put the material. Once again, our grandchildren are being left the bill.

Because Northern Saskatchewan is now being contaminated by acid rain from the Alberta tar sands and polluted by past, current and potential future contaminations from the uranium cycle, tourism and fishing have a limited future. What’s wrong, Mr. Calvert and Mr. Cline, with leaving a legacy for future generations of the last pristine forests and lakes on earth? Shouldn’t our governments be educating the public on all aspects of the nuclear cycle before selling out our children’s future?

Even if we’re going to be indecisive when dealing with the planet’s most dangerous substances we must remember to not serve our gluttony but always err on the side of safety. We owe that to future generations.

Let’s have real public debate and education on this issue, not the endless propaganda from big corporations and naive governments.

And I agree. I certainly don’t like how this is shaping up. SK doesn’t have a good track record where the north is concerned. Look at the environmental damage left in the wake of uranium mining.

Look at Weyerhauser — that multinational has pulled out of SK, but still maintains logging rights to the land which, in effect, stops small- to medium-sized loggers from going in.

So, yes, when there are kids to feed and when there is no work to be had, any work — even in a uranium mine or at a uranium refinery — starts looking pretty fine.

A clamour, indeed…

McGuinty’s nuke plan wrong

Since the Glob & Mall didn't publish my letter to the editor regarding McGuinty's nuclear plan I'll post it here.

It disheartens me that Ontario's government would consider an increase in its nuclear power capacity, not because alternatives to coal and oil are absolutely necessary, but because nuclear energy is unnecessary, unproven, and unsafe.

The people of Port Hope, in their fight against the development of another nuclear facility near their community, have been an inspiration to me and others in Saskatchewan.  Here, we have an New Democratic Party politicking to manufacture support for uranium, their goose that lays the golden egg.   Our NDP government is eager to expand the uranium industry.

Many here are working against an expansion of this industry because we have seen, first hand, how devastating it is to our earth and to our people.  Independent reports show that conditions of the animal, plant, and marine life are constantly deteriorating in "the north."  The Beaverlodge region looks like something from a dystopian sci-fi flick.  Fish in our northern lakes have severe deformities.  Uranium miners face much greater incidences of lung cancer than the norm. 

Worldwide, the nuclear industry is fast fading.  It is killing our earth and doing harm to innocent people (Chernobyl, Iraq).  And, it is sucking money from our governments because it cannot survive without government handouts.  Ontarians, I beg of you, make McGuinty spend that money elsewhere.  Spend your tax dollars on wind and solar power, on anything but this deadly element.