 | Home About Us Press Releases Reports Events Committees Join FARE Contact | |
| «Press Releases CNSC mystery: Was it qualified to say we're safe? Refuses to release qualifications of experts FARE rejects the conclusions of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that we in Port Hope have never been harmed by the nuclear industry, and we are not going to be in the future. Unfortunately, the CNSC “Synthesis Report” has been embraced by our mayor and others who seem to think that if we say everything is okay enough times, it really will be. How qualified are the people who wrote the report to say we’re safe? The CNSC employs many engineers, but it has never confirmed that it has basic scientists, doctors, biologists or geneticists with expertise in human health, environmental medicine and radiobiology. Families Against Radiation Exposure says the report does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Our critique is from a medical geneticist who has a distinguished record of academic publishing, has an MD degree and is a Fellow of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists). When the CNSC was asked to provide the academic qualifications of Patsy Thompson and Rachel Lane, two of the main authors of the synthesis report, it refused. So two months ago, we paid $5 and filed a formal request under the federal Access to Information Act. The answer arrived this week. The letter said “enclosed please find all requested records that could be located using CNSC’s best efforts, within the constraints of the act. You will note that certain information has been withheld from disclosure pursuant to section 19(1).” Three pages were attached. All information on the three pages had been withheld, on grounds that it was “personal.” You don’t suppose they’re trying to hide something, do you? Posted July 1, 2009 | 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