What am I for and what I know
I'm for the selection of the safest spot for DGRs based upon facts including all the risks for long term storage of nuclear waste. It's too important an issue to be derailed.
Further, I don't care where it goes as long as it is the best site geologically and strategically with risk minimized. There are no scientific breakthroughs required.
Written for Canadian Community News by Mike Sterling
To Comment on this article Click Here
During the Joint Review Panel hearings Gordon Edwards, well known anti-nuclear activist, came up with the term "Rolling Stewardship". I've written about this concept. Now, with Edwards' response to the Panel's request for more information, we can close the issue.
Here is Edwards' definition of Rolling Stewardship as provided to the panel in written form.
"In both its written and oral submissions, CCNR (Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, which Edwards heads) has urged the Joint Review Panel to firmly reject the abandonment option in favour of Rolling Stewardship an intergenerational waste management concept whereby each successive generation passes on the knowledge and provides the necessary resources to the next generation, so that nuclear wastes are never placed beyond human control and are never left unattended."
Of course the whole DGR process is designed carefully to be secure enough, once closed, to insure the DGR does not require monitoring, although it is not precluded. There is a huge difference in intent between Edwards and the goals of the DGR in Kincardine.
This process of Rolling along is supposed to continue until a solution appears satisfying the anti-nuclear lobby. Edwards is a semi-darling of people new to the anti-nuclear cause. He is a well known intervener at any hearing. New groups often enlist him as a speaker as SRASOS did in Saugeen Shores.
Edwards appeared and testified before the Joint Review Panel in Kincardine in the fall of 2013. During his testimony he brought into play Rolling Stewardship.
Understandably puzzled, the Joint Review Panel asked for examples. Edwards wisely demurred and opted to provide some in a written undertaking which was submitted recently.
The panel had a list of items they called "undertakings". These were for issues that required more information. Some were meaningful and complex, others were not. By comparison Edwards undertaking was not complex or meaningful.
Edwards was responsible for Undertaking U21. He was chartered to bring back experiences with Rolling Stewardship.
He was unable to do so and said that it was a new concept. So the whole purpose of the undertaking was not forthcoming. The panel wanted concrete examples and received none.
The panel asked him to come up with examples and he deferred to going back and finding some. He opted for more time, which was wise, but not fruitful. It was wise because few read the fine print of these undertakings when they are published. There is no spotlight on them, so mistakes can escape those with casual interests. I expected some tangential examples at least.
In his undertaking submission, Edwards brings up a 1995 US recommendation about preparing future generations for environmental cleanup as a kind of Rolling Stewardship. Of course he knows this was a much broader issue including all sorts of industrial contamination. Further, he gives no examples of it that are at all related to the subject of a DGR.
If a generation has the means and the will to clean up, they should do it and not roll it on over the horizon of generations. We've had over 50 years of good stewardship so far. Now is the time for a permanent solution.
Edwards argument is not just weak, it is non-existent as shown in his response to U21. So much for Rolling Stewardship. Case closed.
As an afterthought, he makes a strange distinction between what he terms as a Dump and a Repository. It's hard to glean from what he says, but it appears something is a dump, if nobody monitors it and it is a repository, if they do.
Edwards can be found at any hearing, rally or event that deals with an anti-movement. He has drawn the ire of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's President Michael Binder, because of his tactics. Here is Binder's letter
There is plenty of room for considered opposition without invention.
Scrolling stops when you move your mouse inside the scroll area. You can click on the ads for more
books, sports, movies ...
Thursday, January 30, 2014