Making up for lost time

Lots of stuff going on since I last posted here.  Besides the Rider’s being in the Western Semi-final today, I mean. 😉

Dr. Jim Harding, ardent no-nukes activist and author, has started a website

to provide an archive of material related to the nuclear industry, renewable energy and other issues related to sustainable development.

The great part is that he’s also doing a blog, filling us in on things such as proposed uranium mines, watershed gatherings in the north and the need for a nuclear waste ban in Saskatchewan, to name a few.

The most recent, the call for the nuke waste ban has come about again because there’s talk about trekking spent radioactive waste from Ontario and into northern Saskatchewan for permanent storage.  Besides this being yet another case of ecological racism, it’s yet another case of Chernobyl on Wheels. Tens of thousands of Europeans persistently lined the shipments’ route to express their outrage over the  issue.

What happened is that once people became educated about the issue, they became outraged.  And in searching for a way to express it, they organized themselves.  It’s what Saskatchewan residents did when the Wall government tried to shove the Uranium Development Partnership upon us.  A result of that was citizens coming together to form The Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan, a province-wide combination of citizens and organizations working together for, as the name says, a clean and green future for our province.

After a lull, the group is preparing to take on the next challenge to the goal of a green future, the transport and storage of nuclear waste.  Various documents are moving about, being shared across the province, the continent and around the world as the industry moves forward in its greed.

The most recent document to cross my desk is one by the Assembly of First Nations.   The Nuclear Fuel Waste Dialogue: Recommendations to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization was prepared following consultations and discussions with First Nations communities.  I’m certain it will prove to be a very useful document for it’s something to which governments, citizens and First Nations communities can point and refer in their discernment and educational processes regarding the storage of nuclear waste on their lands.

So, lots going on.  Lots to do.  More later.

Child cancer risk higher near nuclear plants: study

This is something not carried on major newscasts when it was released in December 2007. Of course, Canada had its own nuclear issues going on then. From the inbox:

Gordon Edwards wrote:


I have been told that this German study was carefully carried out with a very large population living in the vicinity of 16 nuclear power plants. According to my source, there was a statistically significant correlation between cancer/leukemia among children under 5 and their proximity to (or distance from) a nuclear power plant. Moreover, this correlation remained significant when any one nuclear plant was taken away and the other 15 were studied. Thus the results are the strongest ever obtained, and the methodology was, according to all reports, exemplary.

.

Child cancer risk higher near nuclear plants: study

Sat Dec 8, 2007

BERLIN (Reuters) – A German study has found that young children living near nuclear power plants have a significantly higher risk of developing leukemia and other forms of cancer, a German newspaper reported on Saturday.

“Our study confirmed that in Germany a connection has been observed between the distance of a domicile to the nearest nuclear power plant …. and the risk of developing cancer, such as leukemia, before the fifth birthday,” Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper quoted the report as saying.

The newspaper said the study was done by the University of Mainz for Germany’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BFS). A copy of the report was not immediately available.

The researchers found that 37 children within a 5-kilometer (3-mile) radius of nuclear power plants had developed leukemia between 1980 and 2003, while the statistical average during this time period was 17, the paper said.

The newspaper cited an unnamed radiation protection expert familiar with the study who said its conclusions understated the problem. He said the data showed there was an increased cancer risk for children living within 50 kilometers of a reactor.

The statement of the expert external panel is here.

The background to the study is here.