Parry Sound-Muskoka Green Party

Sometimes a series of seemingly unrelated events come together at just the right time to frame an interesting debate on a serious issue.

This is certainly the case with recent discussions on the future of nuclear power as two recent events have brought to light some of the biggest concerns with the future of this type of power generation.

Obviously, the first event in the news is the recent earthquake in Japan and the subsequent breakdown of several of their nuclear reactors. The stress of what has happened coupled with the horror of what could have happened has left many people around the world questioning the wisdom of continuing to rely so heavily on such a potentially harmful fuel.

The other recent incident that has received some (but not enough) press is the transportation of radioactive material over the Great Lakes. The fear is that an accident on the big water could reach the shores and affect people who are ill prepared to deal with the potential fallout.

This concern is amplified by the fact that this small amount of waste is just the tip of the iceberg since every nuclear power plant is characterized by tons of spent uranium that remains radioactive for literally thousands of years.  This has to be stored in a safe and stable environment and kept cool.  Where to keep all of this waste is a constant concern and in Japan and the cooling pools are currently spilling their radioactive water into the sea. There is really no solution for this problem and it promises to get worse over time.

Supporters of nuclear power have pointed out time and time again that the chances of a catastrophe at a nuclear power plant are remote.  This is a fact that is hard to argue with. Indeed over the years there have only been a few major issues with nuclear power.

However, the rarity of major problems is clearly offset by the equally hard to argue fact that any problem when dealing with radioactive material can quickly become devastating. We have seen Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Japan have issues that have resulted in injuries and deaths while severely altering landscapes and lives.  The scary part is that these accidents were not even as bad as they could have been.

Of course it goes without saying that maintaining and monitoring nuclear power plants is extremely important and thus, very costly.

It is also worth noting that the very material used to produce power, uranium, has to be mined and this is, like any other mining, expensive and leaves a scarred landscape. Of course, it also has to be transported to the plant, which adds more cost.

The point is that nuclear power is often touted as a good and often “green” power alternative since the actual amount of emissions released from the production of nuclear power is much less than a coal fired plant.

In reality though, when you take into account the entire process of nuclear power production, from mining of material to disposal of waste, it is anything but green and certainly not cheap especially when compared to the alternatives.

At the end of the day, despite how remote the chance, which would you rather be living beside if an earthquake ever hit Ontario, a windmill or a nuclear power plant.

I thought so.

I found it a little funny that in last week’s editorial your paper seemed to miss the point of the Green Party “attack” ads that were released last week.
I thought it was fairly obvious to most people (including the over 40 000 Canadians who signed on to our anti-attack ad Facebook group in less than 5 days) that the ads were in no way like the other parties as you had suggested. They were in fact the exact opposite.
Our ads were intended to highlight and reject the negative culture of the other parties and their divisive advertising. Hence the play on the word “attack”.