 | Home About Us Press Releases Reports Events Committees Join FARE Contact | |
| «Reports An intervention by Farley Mowat "One more ounce of contamination would be an ounce too much" This intervention was filed to the CNSC by author Farley Mowat. Three years ago, I was honoured by having a ship commissioned in my name – the M/V Farley Mowat – a flagship of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a leading action force devoted to the protection of the natural world from human abuse. In defence of the natural world, Sea Shepherd ships commanded by Capt. Paul Watson have successfully undertaken missions in the Arctic, Antarctic, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and as far afield as the Galapagos Islands, Alaska, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Grand Banks, the Faeroe Islands and the Siberian coast. Not long ago I took Capt. Watson on a tour of my home town, Port Hope. When he had been briefed on the situation regarding Cameco and nits predecessors, I asked if he and the Sea Shepherd Society would undertake a rescue mission to my town. Capt. Watson replied that he would like to do so but the Farley Mowat could not enter Port Hope’s harbour because it was now so full of contaminated silt that even pleasure yacht had trouble entering. Furthermore, it was as your Commission’s own report on the condition of the harbour has confirmed – it is “contaminated with levels exceeding guidelines for arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, phosphorous” and other noxious chemicals. “Our ships and crews have taken and will continue to take extraordinary risks to defend the environment,” Capt. Watson said. “But I’d be hesitant to take on this hone. Pirate whalers, the Soviet navy, international poachers, Canadian and Norwegian butchers of the seal herds – these are some of the enemies of nature we have successfully confronted. Dealing with the kind of hidden poisons you have in Port Hope is probably beyond our powers.” Too bad. But we can hardly fault the Sea Shepherd Society. The toxic conditions that obtain in and around Port Hope seem to be beyond the capabilities of the entire Government of Canada to deal with, even though that government is fully aware of the risk posed to all living things in the vicinity. The danger looms not only on land and in the water but in the very air. The CNSC’s own reports tell us that: “The Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) for the region have not been measured since 1994.” TSP includes uranium dust, of which we are told 60 kg is spewed out by the Cameco plant every year, much of it in so fine a form that it can be absorbed into the blood stream of living creatures, including human beings. And this is now – before any SEU, which would add even more uranium, ammonia and other lethal contaminants to our land, air and water. I believe that continuing to support Cameco’s interests would be insanity. I believe the CNSC should lead the way in a campaign to stop poisoning the land, air and waters of Port Hope and its vicinity and that the Commission should give us a proper and all-embracing (including a health survey) panel review of the situation by independent experts not associated with the nuclear industry or any other commercial organization. One more ounce of additional contamination added to the 3.5 million cubic metres of contaminated soil surrounding us would be an ounce too much. If the Cameco plant did not already exist and if some equally well-connected entrepreneur came to Port Hope tomorrow with a proposal to establish a new industry based on radioactive substances that conceivably could go critical, an industry that would pre-empt the town’s waterfront as a toxic site for the foreseeable future without even a pretense of a buffer zone between it and the population of the town, an industry that would create havoc in the local environment … would you give it your blessing? I believe not. I implore you, Madame Chair and distinguished Commissioners, to refuse your blessing for Cameco’s SEU proposal and in so doing give this community, its people and its non-human creatures, a beginning chance to recover from the evils that have been inflicted upon us. | Lakeshore Road residents should be applauded Why is broken pipe contaminating lake? Low-level plan found wanting Liner system for waste called problematic CNSC advised it's too cozy with industry Conflict of interest: We told them that What to do if Cameco burns Emergency plan says buy a lot of duct tape Briarpatch magazine interviews FARE How citizens thwarted the nuclear industry Our new council: Where they stand on Cameco emissions The stigma of risk: Assessing the cost of living in the plume International studies show the social price we pay Cost of Cameco on our waterfront: $6 million a year FARE consultant lists jobs, taxes we'd gain if it moved elsewhere Peer review says SEU screening fatally flawed Town council's intervention called for health testing Town tells CNSC: Answer us or else Peer review team acknowledges "the high level of sustained public concern." An intervention by Farley Mowat "One more ounce of contamination would be an ounce too much" Why CNSC screening was inadequate Sierra Legal Defence Fund files brief on behalf of FARE Why we shouldn't trust the CNSC David Craig's commentary aired on CHUC CNSC screening report on Cameco EA This was released on May 11, but was not put on the regulator's website At last: CNSC report on Cameco's mid-term review It notes the many interventions by FARE members FARE affidavit for panel review Waterkeeper submission to CNSC on May 19, 2005 Dr. Eric Mintz February 2004 health study report A critique of the Mortality Study for Port Hope 2002 Letter from FARE to Federal Minister of the Environment Unresolved concerns of the people of Port Hope (5 April 2005) Prepared by Families Against Radiation Exposure and Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee at the request of Paul Macklin, MP 22 July 2004: The 623 questions raised by the Research Sub Committee CNSC: A lax regulator FARE documents how little it did to force compliance between 2002 and 2004. | |||||
| | | | | | |
admin@ph-fare.com P.O. Box 202 Port Hope, Ontario L1A 3W3 Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to admin@ph-fare.com. Copyright © 2005 Families Against Radiation Exposure, Inc. All rights reserved. Last modified: 15 April 2005 Archived Information » top of this page « administration |
About this issue:
Frequently Asked Questions
Port Hope Radiation Issues in the News
Radiation and Health Effects
FARE Newsletter
Web Links
External sites:
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
Energy Probe