Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Canada okays plan for nuclear waste depot - AFP

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 04:23 AM
Original message
Canada okays plan for nuclear waste depot - AFP
Source: Agence France-Presse

Canada okays plan for nuclear waste depot

1 hour, 43 minutes ago

OTTAWA (AFP) - The Canadian government has approved a plan
for a below-ground nuclear waste depot that is backed by the
nuclear power industry but branded by environmentalists as
dangerous.

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said Thursday that the
government had accepted a plan to bury radioactive waste from
nuclear plants in deep subterranean storage depots after first
temporarily storing it in shallower underground facilities.

"This is a safe, long-term approach," Lunn said in a statement.

The storage method "will ensure the used nuclear fuel is
monitored and retrievable," he said.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070615/sc_afp/canadanuclearwaste_070615073916
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. As much as I despise Gary Lunn, this is excellent news
The sooner they can get that crap out of local short-term storage and put it some place stable and secure the better.

There are two things I don't get about the objections to long term waste storage. The first is that the long-term plans I've seen are all much safer for the population than the existing stop-gap of leaving this stuff sitting above ground in holding tanks. The second is that the issue of storage of existing waste is entirely separable from whether existing reactors keep operating or new ones are built.

Well, actually I do "get" why they're objecting. By not severing the two issues, nuclear opponents are trying to make life as difficult a possible for the nuclear industry. It's too bad that by doing so the anti-nukes are actually increasing the public risk they say they are trying to reduce. Ironic, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. The third is that we don't need it in the first place. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I make no claims about the need for nuclear power itself in this post
I'm talking specifically about waste storage. I'm pretty sure we need that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC