Home      About Us      Press Releases      Reports      Events      Committees      Join FARE      Contact «Press Releases East Beach park contaminated with uranium No one is concerned Why is everyone running for cover about the safety of Port Hope's East Beach park? Why is no one telling the public that soil tests done there for Cameco Corporation show levels of uranium that are 400 percent higher than the guidelines for safety determined by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment? The parks department wasn't aware of them when FARE presented it with evidence on March 20. In the month since then, Mayor Linda Thompson has twice refused to meet with FARE to discuss the report, and she has not responded to our request to make the public aware of the test results. She says only that Health Canada told her that "the uranium levels identified in Appendix J do not pose a human health risk." (Ask at the Municipal Hall to see Appendix J of Final Soil Characterization and Evaluation Study at Port Hope Cameco, submitted to the CNSC on June 20, 2008) But that's not true. The CCME sets levels which represent a "no- to low-" effect level for the protection of human health and all ecological receptors," according to the Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (1999). The guidelines also say a site characterization study or a risk assessment should be done on any property showing high readings. That does not appear to have been done in the case of the East Beach park, which is used by children at the corner of Mill and Madison Streets. Tests done for Cameco by SENES Consultants show readings of up to 98.3 parts per million of uranium at the park. The CCME guidelines set a level of 23 parts per million. Those readings were sent to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in June 2008. FARE discovered them in documents obtained through the Access to Information Act. An April 6 letter from Mayor Thompson said "I have already expressed my disappointment to Cameco and the CNSC that the information regarding soil conditions on the municipal property was not highlighted and provided." That's not good enough. FARE believes any public users should be informed by posted signs that uranium levels in the soil at the park have high readings. The CNSC should also do soil tests to determine the origin of the contamination. While the source of uranium in soil just a stone's throw from Cameco may seem obvious, the SENES report states that "the presence of uranium and associated metals can be tied to earlier waste emplacement activities (not associated with historic activities of Cameco/Eldorado)." This cover-up by Cameco and the municipality cannot be allowed to continue. Scary map shows how much Cameco pollutes harbour CNSC says it must stop before low-level clean-up Does the CNSC believe THIS?? It appears to go against new scientific wisdom CNSC mystery: Was it qualified to say we're safe? Refuses to release qualifications of experts East Beach park contaminated with uranium No one is concerned Cameco lied: CNSC orders it to fix pipe Treatment systems "do not conform" Mayor's views on W-FIVE show are inaccurate Why do Health Canada, CNSC refuse comment? Write in to stop Cameco reopening polluting plant Make them clean up huge uranium spill More and more lies: Cameco's clean-up branded 'deficient' CNSC documents show lots more may be wrong What we want regulator do do Full clean-up needed of leaking uranium Dust emissions top our concerns No targets or plan to curtail uranium Too expensive to clean up all of our waste? We need explanations of delays, extra costs FARE has issues with SEU plans at Zircatec Questions filed to CNSC concerning EA screening Zircatec gets blank cheque from CNSC No mention of concerns registered by FARE Rubber stamp for Zircatec and Cameco CNSC ignores concerns of nearly 300 intervenors Here we go again: CNSC fast-tracks SEU assessment CNSC changes rules to limit public input Evening Guide guilty on "sitting on sidelines" Panders to big advertiser instead of serving people FARE wins Canadian Environment Award Praised for stopping SEU and accurate research Uranium dioxide: We've found proof that it can burn Despite Cameco's claims, its own records don't lie How to register as an intervenor for Oct. 20 hearing CNSC coming to Port Hope and they'll hear an earful Poll: 78 percent of us want a panel review Council gets details of new public opinion poll: More oppose SEU than favour it "Reckless disregard" on fire protection Documents show how CNSC dropped the ball, and why we need a panel review FARE asks 44 questions about CNSC draft report Expects them to be answered before environmental hearings 3 groups demand independent review of SEU May 19 press conference held at Port Hope harbour 3 May 2005 - CNSC response to questions about neutron radiation Press Release 14 April 2005: Questions about Neutron Radiation 30 March 2005: Response from CNSC to FARE letter 26 March 2005: Letter from FARE to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 22 July 2004: Media Release (As read by John Morand) 22 July 2004: Research Sub Committee Statement - read by Patrick McNamara 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