|
Nuclear Fallout - Parts 1 and 2 by Todd van der Heyden CFCF/CTV Montreal May 15, 2005 |
This program was virtually a re-run of Todd van der Heyden's "On Your Side" show of October 17, 2003, also aired on CFCF/CTV Montreal.
Viewers were not advised that they were being shown a re-cut version of an old program, and CFCF deleted their web-posted transcript of the Oct 17 2003 show (but left transcripts of other previous shows intact). |
|
GENTILLY 2 IS QUEBEC'S ONLY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. IN OPERATION SINCE 1983, THE PLANT HAS BEEN SHROUDED IN MYSTERY. NOW THE FUTURE OF GENTILLY 2 IS ABOUT TO BE DECIDED AND SOME PEOPLE SAY KEEPING IT GOING IS A RISK NOT WORTH TAKING. DIANE LANOUETTE IS A RETIRED ARTIST. HER FAMILY HAS LIVED IN CHAMPLAIN, QUEBEC FOR GENERATIONS.
[Diane Lanouette/Champlain Resident]
WHAT DIANE IS TALKING ABOUT IS THE GENTILLY 2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, ACROSS THE RIVER FROM HER HOME. DIANE LOST MUCH OF HER INTESTINES TO CANCER A FEW YEARS AGO. SHE BELIEVES HER ILLNESS IS LINKED TO THE PLANT. [Diane] We think there is a possible risk. Many, many persons in Champlain know a neighbour who has cancer. We think there is a lot of cancer. SHE AND A FEW OTHER LOCAL RESIDENTS ARE PART OF A SMALL GROUP, ZERO NUCLEAIRE THAT'S BEEN FIGHTING TO CLOSE THE PLANT FOR YEARS.
|
Gentilly-2 is the only nuclear power plant in Quebec. There are also several nuclear plants in Ontario and one in New Brunswick.
Cancer affects us all, either personally or through friends, families and acquaintances. Each cancer case is individual and intensely personal. Much of the following data discusses the cancer mortality or incidence rates (i.e. deaths or cases per year per 100,000 people); these statistics are the best means available to compare how frequently cancer affects us. The data is presented respectfully, realizing statistics are cold comfort to those individuals afflicted with cancer. Cancer occurs in every province and territory in Canada. The incidence of cancer is influenced by a complex array of factors, and is unrelated to whether-or-not a province has nuclear power plants or one's proximity to nuclear plants. One important factor is that Canadians, as a population, are living longer; thus cancers have a longer time to grow and reveal themselves than when we died, on average, at an earlier age. According to the Canadian Cancer Society in their document, Canadian Cancer Statistics 2005 (1,001 kB), cancer mortality rates in all provinces are close to the national average. The national average mortality rate from cancer is 224 and 148 cancer deaths (per year, per 100,000 people), for males and females respectively. The provincial cancer incidence rates are also close to the national average - 468 and 345 cancer cases, for males and females respectively). For the province of Quebec, the cancer mortality rate is 256 and 158 for males and females respectively, and the cancer incidence rate is 482 and 350 for males and females respectively. Quebec cancer rates are slightly higher than the national rates; this is due almost entirely to the high rates of lung cancer in Quebec, caused by the continuing high popularity of cigarette smoking relative to other provinces. The rates of all other cancer types in Quebec are virtually identical - and in some cases lower - than the national average. Within the Province of Quebec, the Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux provides regional cancer statistics in its Fichier des tumeurs du Québec. The Répartition géographique page provides the following cancer incidence data (combined male-female, selected examples, cancers per year per 100,000 people) :
According to this report, female residents of the municipalities neighbouring Gentilly-2 "distinguish themselves by a lower rate of new cancers relative to Quebec as a whole (345 cases versus 371 cases). With regards to specific cancer types, female residents of the municipalities have a lower incidence of lung cancer (39 versus 47) and breast cancer (98 versus 111). No other significant difference was observed relative to Quebec as a whole. As for the male residents of the municipalities, their cancer rates are not significantly different from those of Quebec as a whole."
From the above data, there is no suggestion that cancer rates in Quebec as a whole, or in the region surrounding Gentilly-2, are related to the nuclear plant. This is not surprising, since long-term monitoring has shown that radiation levels in the region surrounding the plant are not higher than normal natural background radiation levels. Beyond that, it is also known that cancer rates in certain regions in other parts of the world, where natural background radiation levels are many times higher than those in Quebec, are not any higher than the average for the population of surrounding areas. Concerning Champlain resident Diane Lanouette, Todd van der Heyden's 2003 "On Your Side" show stated that "DIANE LANOUETTE RETIRED HERE FIVE YEARS AGO. 18 MONTHS LATER, SHE GOT CANCER - HER INTESTINES HAD TO BE REMOVED." But radiation carcenogenesis, like skin cancer following years of sun tanning, involves a lengthy latency period following exposure. Typically this ranges from 5 to 25 years for high, acute radiation doses, and longer for low doses. Contracting cancer only 18 months after moving to the vicinity of a nuclear plant is in fact strong indication that the cause of the cancer was something other than anything in the new environment, radiation included. It is also worth noting that lower total dose and lower dose rate causes a longer latency period. The same dose received a billion times faster (as in the case of the victims of the atomic bombings in Japan) is likely to be more serious than one received over a protracted period of time, such as part of an occupational exposure. In the latter case, the body's biological defences have time to deal with the insult, which at the molecular level is not fundamentally different from damage caused by other environmental insults, such as various oxidants. Recalling the sunlight analogue, it is well known that a single severe sun burn is far more damaging than a modest sun tan acquired over an entire summer season. At radiation dose rates ranging from about 100 to 500 times natural background radiation (i.e. 10 to 50 rem per year, still in the low-dose-rate category), the latency period is likely to be well beyond the normal human life span. There have been no health effects observed at this dose level.
|
| SO FAR, THEY'VE BEEN POWERLESS AGAINST WHAT THEY CALL "POWERFUL INTERESTS". THAT'S BECAUSE GENTILLY 2 IS PART OF AN INDUSTRY THAT'S REMOTE AND MYSTERIOUS. [Diane] I feel it very secret. very secret. |
The nuclear industry provides a great deal of information to the public, perhaps more than any other high-tech industry. The nuclear industry and regulatory agencies in many countries, including Canada, make good use of the Internet to disseminate that information. The national regulator of all matters related to nuclear science and technology (e.g. nuclear power, uranium mining, nuclear medicine, research, industrial isotopes) is the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The Canadian Nuclear Society, sponsor of this web page, provides numerous links to nuclear-related information here and on the pages of the Québec branch. Beyond that, individual nuclear power plants - Gentilly-2 included - provide some public outreach programs, like for instance the "événement portes ouvertes sous le grand chapiteau" last June 19 & 20, 2004 (see bulletin at the Quebec branch page).
In Quebec, the public utility Hydro-Quebec has a very extensive series of web sites dedicated to the various hydroelectric and other types of plants it operates, has under construction, or is planning or studying for possible future projects. As one of Hydro-Quebec's important generating stations, Gentilly-2 also has a public web site, with a long list of available information sources:
For independent radiation monitoring, see also Health Canada's Canadian Radiological Monitoring Network (CRMN) established for monitoring in the vicinity of Canadian nuclear power plants. Both External Radiation Dose Measurements and Tritium in Atmospheric Water Vapour are provided for the region around Gentilly-2, including Champlain, across the river. CFCF could have used a Geiger counter (a simple-to-use and relatively common instrument) to demonstrate the very low radiation levels on the Gentilly-2 plant property and several kilometres away in the town of Champlain. CFCF's Todd Van der Heyden interviewed G-2's Michel Rheaume and Jim Blyth of the CNSC, but the show edited out any reference to the long-term radiation monitoring programs and the actual low environmental readings recorded as part of those programs.
|
| MARCEL JETTE HAS BEEN FIGHTING HIS BATTLE FOR EIGHT YEARS. HE HAS INCURABLE CANCER OF THE LYMPH NODES. HE WORKED INSIDE GENTILLY AS A WELDER ON CONTRACT BETWEEN 1969 AND 1995. HE SAYS HYDRO-QUEBEC DOWNPLAYED THE RISKS.
[Marcel Jette/Former Employee]
[Marcel] Il y en a d'autres qui ont accepte mais il n'ont pas le droit d'en parler parce que c'etait un reglement a l'amiable.
[Céline Germain/Champlain Resident]
[Céline] It's very obvious that nothing is fine. I mean why would I want to move from one of the nicest places where I've been except for the plant. I mean I'm losing money, I'm losing my job, I'm losing everything.
|
Cancer is a terrible disease.
Unfortunately, it is also a common disease, as shown in the above statistics. When a quarter of all deaths in a large population is due to cancer, it is impossible to say what caused the disease in any particular individual. There are exceptions, such as certain cancers known to be caused by viral infections, cancers due to hereditary factors, or cancers caused by extremely high doses of radiation. An example of the latter are the Radium dial painters, in the early part of the last century, whose doses of many thousands of rems were accumulated over several years. Their deaths were some of the earliest cases of occupational radiation-induced cancers, and involved radiation doses thousands of times higher than anything seen in the modern nuclear industry (barring serious accidents). The health effects of low dose ionizing radiation, if any, are difficult to discern, but a number of epidemiological studies have attempted to do just that. Two of the largest and best known of these occupational radiation health effects studies are the "100 years of observation on British radiologists: mortality from cancer and other causes 1897-1997" study, a follow-up of 2,698 male radiologists, and the "Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study (1980-1988)" of 27,872 nuclear workers in the United States (Portsmouth, New Hampshire). The British study showed that early radiologists (1897-1920) had a cancer mortality 75% higher than other male physicians. The increased cancer mortality was clearly a result of their large radiation dose. Exposures of British radiologists were reduced starting in 1920 owing to the activities of the British X-ray Safety Committee. After 1920, radiologists' overall health improved. Starting in 1936 however, cancer rates amongst radiologists dropped significantly below those for the general public, to 66% of the prevailing rate. This was at a time when the only dose limit in effect was the "tolerance dose" of 0.2 rems per day. Post-1955 radiologists experienced 29% lower cancer rates than that for other male physicians. By comparison, current radiation dose limits for radiation workers in Canada (and most other countries) are 5 rems per year, or 10 rems over five years (except for astronauts, for who the limit is 50 rems per year, because "Terrestrial radiation guidelines are considered too restrictive for space activities"). Similarly, the Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study (also available as original document 6.450 MB pdf) indicated that risks of leukemia and all lymphatic and hematopoietic cancers among nuclear workers were below those of the general population. Specifically, the mortality from all malignant neoplasms for the nuclear workers was found to be only 95% of that of their non-nuclear shipyard colleagues (the nuclear workers had a higher rate of mesothelioma than did the controls, who also had excess mesothelioma - an effect likely related to asbestos exposure in the cramped conditions of submarine work). More recently, here in Canada, a study of 45,468 workers registered in the National Dose Registry from 1957 to 1994 was carried out under the aegis of Health Canada. Included in the study were employees of Hydro-Québec, New-Brunswick Power, AECL, and Ontario Power Generation (formerly Ontario Hydro). The results showed that mortality rates in general, as well as cancer rates, are lower among nuclear industry workers than the general public, as shown by this graph:
(The 74% risk level for "all causes" is indicative of a cohort that is on average younger than the general population - the reference relative risk level of "1") As regards the specific case of Mr.Jetté, please see responses below.
|
| CELINE SHOWED US HER CAT BORN WITH A GENETIC DEFORMITY. SHE'S CONVINCED GENTILLY IS TO BLAME.
[Céline] How many people have to be sick before you get to understand that it has to be closed?
|
It's nothing new that people have linked monsters and radiation, without any basis in fact. Nuclear radiation is an extremely poor teratogen (an agent that causes malformations in a foetus), particularly when compared to other agents such as certain chemicals.
For example, the November 2002 issue of National Geographic featured an article on nuclear legacy issues, including the contamination of land surrounding the former Soviet nuclear weapons testing site at Semipalatinsk. A photo of monster foetuses preserved in glass bottles was included to illustrate alleged gruesome effects of nuclear radiation (or 'Ionizing Radiation' - IR for short). In 1999, Prof. James C. Warf visited Semipalatinsk and was interviewed and quoted by the popular media on numerous occasions. Subsequently he clarified his observations by saying that "I examined my writings about the cyclops foetus in Semipalatinsk, and found that I did not explicitly state that it resulted from IR, but the context was clear that this could easily be inferred. My writing was faulty in that instance, and I have changed it to show clearly that this case was probably not attributable to IR." It is instructive to consider instead examples like the Kunstkammer collection, which was assembled many, many years before the discovery of radioactivity and nuclear fission, bombs, and reactors: Anatomical Rarities of the St. Petersburg Kunstkammer
{begin quote}
Abnormalities have always attracted attention. In the Talmud, a 2nd century AD text of ancient Rabbinic writings, there is a list of more than 100 types of birth defects. Among the specimens kept in the Kunstkammer are examples of different physical defects as well as examples of various degrees of twin accretion. These defects that people have observed since ancient times have perhaps given rise to the legends about the Cyclops, double-faced Janus, as well as harpies, water nymphs, and fauns.
|
|
THE PLANT IS NOW AT A CROSSROADS. HYDRO-QUEBEC WANTS TO SPEND AT LEAST 1.2 BILLION DOLLARS TO UPGRADE IT. HYDRO NEEDS A GREENLIGHT FROM THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT. A DECISION WILL COME IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
[Gordon Edwards/Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility]
BUT CRITICS SAY NOW IS THE TIME TO END QUEBEC'S NUCLEAR EXPERIMENT. GORDON EDWARDS IS AN ANTI-NUCLEAR ACTIVIST. [Edwards] It would be the best thing to just back out of this technology and say we don't want to be in this any more. It was a mistake. We shouldn't have gotten into it in the first place. GENTILLY 2 IS THE PROVINCE'S ONLY NUCLEAR PLANT. IT'S MANAGED TO STAY OFF THE RADAR SCREEN MOST OF ITS LIFE. MANY PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW IT EXISTS. AND IT IS AN ODDITY. IT'S NEVER ACTUALLY GENERATED MUCH POWER. JUST 3 PER CENT BUT IT IS GENERATING CONTROVERSY. CONCERNED RESIDENTS HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION: WHY TAKE THE RISK? [Diane] 3 per cent of electricity. It doesn't make sense. |
During the recent ceremony celebrating the 25th anniversary of the La Grande-2 hydroelectric generating station in James Bay, Quebec Premier Jean Charest highlighted the importance of increasing the diversity of energy sources in Quebec. Presently, 97% of Hydro-Québec's energy production is by way of hydroelectric dams. Due to the great abundance of this natural resource in Quebec, the importance of hydro will certainly be maintained long into the future.
However, hydro dams and their reservoirs are dependent on the weather (precipitation), which may vary from year to year. The year 2003 in particular was an example of an "annus horribilis", when there was very little rain or snow. As a result, the water energy supply was 24 TWh below the average over the last 60 years. Combined with an unexpected rise in energy demand in Quebec, the situation put Quebec's energy security in danger. As the Expert Advice report to the Minister of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Parks stated, there is an urgent need to increase Hydro-Québec's operating margin from 10 to 20 TWh of energy per year. The report also notes that even with a 15 TWh reserve, Quebec will on average need to import electricity once every four years. Building additional hydroelectric plants will help, but any such new plants will be just as dependent on precipitation as are existing hydro dams. By contrast, nuclear plants like Gentilly-2 run completely independently of the weather, with a capacity factor in excess of 80%. One does not increase Quebec's energy security by shutting down its most reliable energy source. Moreover, the construction of new hydro dams or large windmill farms uses up large tracts of land, transforming the environment in significant and permanent ways. Hydro reservoirs flood vast land areas and affect wilderness rivers. A hydro reservoir in northern Québec, producing the equivalent energy of Gentilly-2, would occupy approximately 825 square kilometres of land. Also, the number of sites suitable for construction of large hydro dams is rapidly diminishing, as the best ones are already developed, and the remaining ones are much more expensive to develop and increasingly remote from consumers. There is still potential to develop many so-called mini-hydro sites, but their aggregate energy output doesn't add up to much, and there is fierce environmental opposition to such projects. Wind farms occupy large areas of land, to produce energy. A windmill farm producing the equivalent energy of Gentilly-2 would occupy approximately 390 square kilometres of land - about a third of Quebec's Mauricie National Park. Lastly, G-2's location in the heart of Quebec's power distribution network increases energy security by minimizing transmission line vulnerability to ice storms, as well as reducing transmission line power losses, which can reach 10% of the energy produced at the source. As the International Energy Agency stated recently in its report on the energy situation in Canada (31 January 2005): "nuclear energy constitutes an important element in the supply of energy, economic competitiveness, and in the fight against climate change. Canada should not forego potentially attractive nuclear generation. The federal government should explore barriers to the attainment of maximum economic generation from existing nuclear plants, consistent with safety considerations. ....the federal government should evaluate the costs and benefits of deploying new nuclear plants in the future, in particular with regard to the environment and the benefit of further diversification of power generation in Canada." In other words, rather than complaining that G-2 supplies "only" 3% of Quebec's energy, we should double or triple that contribution by building new nuclear plants. In this context, it is worth noting that the existing site hosting the G-2 plant could easily accommodate additional CANDU plants, without any need for expanding its perimeter. This was foreseen in the original site plan for Gentilly, as can be seen in the illustrations near the bottom of this page.
|
|
FOR ANSWERS, WE WENT TO MICHEL RHEAUME. A NUCLEAR PHYSICIST BY TRAINING AND SPOKEMAN FOR THE GENTILLY PLANT.
[Michel Rhéaume/Hydro-Quebec Spokesman]
HYDRO-QUEBEC HAS LONG DENIED ITS NUCLEAR PLANT IS A DANGER TO PEOPLE'S HEALTH. IN THE CASE OF MARCEL JETTE, FOR EXAMPLE, HYDRO SAYS IT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE.
[Rhéaume] I'm very sad for Marcel Jette because he's sick.
HYDRO QUEBEC SAYS IT HAS THESE STUDIES TO PROVE THAT THERE'S NO RISK. BUT HOW RELIABLE ARE THEY? WE SPOKE TO SOME LEADING INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS ABOUT THE LINK BETWEEN CANCER AND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. AND THEY TOLD US THERE ARE NO SCIENTIFICALLY-CONCLUSIVE STUDIES OUT THERE EITHER WAY. AND SO, THEY SAID NOBODY SHOULD BE MAKING THE CLAIM THAT'S THERE'S NO RISK OR THAT THE RISK IS MINIMAL.
JOHN BENNETT IS AN ENVIRONMENTALIST WITH THE SIERRA CLUB.
[Todd van der Heyden] What do you think the possible risks are from that plant?
|
In a letter, dated 22 December 1998, the AECB's Director General, Pierre Marchildon, wrote to Marcel Jetté:
"concerning your employment at Gentilly-2, I would like to inform you that according to the documentation check we have performed, the radiation doses that you have received in the periods from September 1993 to January 1994, and from April to July 1995, are 6.91 mSv [0.691 rems] and 18.04 mSv [1.804 rems] respectively. For radiation workers the trimestrial limit is 30 mSv [3 rems], and the annual limit is 50 mSv [5 rems].
[...] I can also inform you that no dose was registered during 1981 and 1982. For the year 1971 the dose you received was 2.87 mSv [0.287 rems]." From the above records, its clear that Mr. Jetté's radiation exposures were well below the legal limits. Also, from the preceding discussion above, it is clear that such small doses have an essentially zero chance of causing cancer in an individual. Note that the Atomic Energy Control Board was the forerunner to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
|
|
REFURBISHING THE GENTILLY 2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WOULD COST MORE THAN A BILLION DOLLARS. BUT SINCE THE PLANT ONLY GENERATES 3 PER CENT OF ALL OF QUEBEC'S ELECTRICITY, SOME SAY THAT'S TOO HIGH A PRICE. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE HEALTH AND SECURITY RISKS INVOLVED.
[Nuclear Fallout - Part 2] [Reporter=Todd van der Heyden] THE ST-LAWRENCE RIVER IS CRITICAL TO THE NORTH AMERICAN ECONOMY. THE GENTILLY-2 NUCLEAR PLANT SITS ON ITS SHORES, A STRATEGIC LOCATION. ON TWO OCCASIONS SINCE 9/11, MEDIA HAVE FLOWN OVER GENTILLY WITHOUT BEING STOPPED.
[Gordon Edwards/Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility] ACTIVIST GORDON EDWARDS WARNS TONNES OF RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR WASTE ARE STORED ON SITE. [Edwards] If you wanted to do something to cripple the St-Lawrence seaway, the only target that I can think of that would be able to do that, would be the Gentilly nuclear reactor because of the radioactive poisons in it. An attack on the Gentilly reactor would probably disable the entire seaway.
|
The issue of terrorism is addressed in the Canadian Nuclear FAQ ("Frequently-Asked Questions") item How are nuclear plants protected from terrorist attacks?, which states:
"While it is easy to foresee significant local (on-site) destruction and loss of life resulting from such an attack on a nuclear station, the issue relevant to public safety is the potential for catastrophic damage to the reactor core itself, and consequent off-site radiation exposure. ...a WTC-style attack on a commercial North American nuclear station would likely result (in the opinion of this author) in a heavy loss of life and property at the plant site itself, plus damage to the electrical grid infrastructure and significant loss of generating capacity, but would have little effect outside the plant's exclusion boundary. If radiation were released the amounts would not be significant enough to make this an attractive terrorist target for a WTC-style attack." An engineering analysis was done by Hydro-Québec and a summary of the results submitted to the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement ( BAPE) as the document Centrale nucléaire de Gentilly-2 - Effets de l’écrasement d’un avion commercial - Bâtiment du réacteur et site du stockage à sec du combustible irradié, 15 juin 2004 ("Gentilly-2 nuclear power station - Effects of a commercial airliner impact - Reactor building and spent fuel storage site").
According to this study:
Calculations show that the fireball created at the impact point would be of very brief duration and that it would not cause any significant additional damage to the wall, or the roofs of adjoining buildings. The metal cladding of certain walls of adjoining buildings could however be damaged. The burning pool of fuel formed at the base of the reactor building would subject the wall to a high temperature. The area exposed would be greater or smaller depending on the height of the flames, the size of the fuel pool and prevailing wind conditions. The portion of the wall exposed to the fire would sustain only superficial damage that would not affect the building's structural integrity. The temperature inside the building would rise slightly and cracks would appear on the inside surface of the wall, opposite the flames. Nevertheless, these cracks would not propagate through the wall, whose steel reinforcing bar structure would remain intact. If a commercial airliner were to impact the spent nuclear fuel storage site, the severity of damage would vary depending on the speed of the aircraft at the moment of impact, whether the collapsible or hard parts of the aircraft impact, and depending on the impact point itself. Large cracks could form on the walls of the storage module hit by the plane, but no concrete pieces would detach from the interior surface of the wall. The module's top surface would not be breached if one of the airliner's engines hit it. Consequently, the structural integrity of the module would be maintained. The fireball created near the impact point would be followed by a fire on the top of the impacted module and by burning of the fuel pool formed around the module. The module would be surrounded by flames on the outside, and combustion product gases would enter inside by way of the ventilation ducts. Calculations show that damage caused by the very short-lived fireball would be negligible, and that the fire on top would not damage the steel covers welded over the storage cylinders' massive concrete plugs. The heat of the external fire of the fuel pool and of the hot gases penetrating inside, would only cause superficial damage that would not compromise the structural integrity of the storage module.
In the absence of damage to the storage cylinders inside the modules, the confinement of the spent fuel would not be threatened, since the maximum temperature of the hot gases is below the melting point of the Zircaloy fuel cladding containing the ceramic uranium oxide fuel pellets."
As regards the main spent fuel pool next to the reactor building, this is a large underground water-filled facility with thick, steel-lined concrete walls constructed deep in a pit excavated from rock. As such, it cannot be hit by airliners. It has been said numerous times that the day we decide to run our energy (and other infrastructure) policy based on terrorist threats, is the day the terrorists will have won. While a prudent approach is to take reasonable measures to protect certain facilities, experts have also pointed out that, unlike nuclear reactors, there are a great many other types of installations with little or no defences. CFCF made no mention of these other risks.
|
|
AND THEN THERE'S THE HAZARDOUS PLUTONIUM PRODUCED AND STORED AT GENTILLY WHICH COULD BE USED TO MAKE ATOMIC BOMBS. REMEMBER: THIS WASTE WILL HAVE TO STORED AND GUARDED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
[Michel Rhéaume/Hydro-Quebec Spokesman]
|
Plutonium is created in all nuclear reactors using uranium fuel, and much of the plutonium is fissioned in turn, which produces additional heat. When the fuel is withdrawn from the reactor, because the fissile material (i.e. it can be fissioned) has been largely used up (spent), the remaining plutonium is scattered throughout the mixture of uranium and fission products. Separating the plutonium is not a trivial matter, due to the high but declining radiation fields as the fission products decay away. In addition, the plutonium from spent reactor fuel is significantly denatured by a variety of plutonium isotopes - plutonium recovered from power reactors is not weapons-grade.
Plutonium tends to be overplayed when risks are discussed; in fact, plutonium is bound up tightly in the spent fuel, and it is difficult to get it into the form (inhaled aerosols) where it poses a significant hazard. There are an estimated 6 to 8 tonnes of plutonium in the atmosphere, a legacy of atmospheric weapons testing. Plutonium also powers the cardiac pacemakers of some heart patients. It may be that plutonium from spent reactor fuel will one day be recovered for use as a nuclear fuel. The so-called spent nuclear fuel from CANDU reactors like Gentilly-2 still contains about 98% of the original uranium, plus about 0.4% plutonium which formed in-situ (the remainder being the relatively short-lived radioactive fission products). There are already many reactors around the world that use recycled or "MOX" fuel, although this alternative is presently economical only for plants that use more expensive enriched uranium fuel, rather than the cheap natural uranium used in CANDU plants. There are also trials underway to "burn" the plutonium from nuclear weapons, as part of an international program similar the "Megatons to Megawatts" program for highly enriched uranium from bombs, or the "Swords into Ploughshares" program.
|
|
HYDRO QUEBEC SAYS EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL INSISTING THE PLANT IS SAFE. BUT WE INVESTIGATED ITS RECORD. [Graphic: "recent loss of Class IV events at Gentilly-2, 1995...have shown limitations...to appropriately predict the changes in reactivity." WE FOUND THERE WAS A SERIOUS INCIDENT IN SEPTEMBER 1995 - CALLED A "CLASS-IV EVENT" - A POWER FAILURE TO THE PLANT. THERE WAS A RAPID CORE POWER INCREASE. WHILE EMERGENCY SAFETY PROTOCOLS SHUT THE STATION DOWN IMMEDIATELY, THE SIMULATIONS HAD BEEN WRONG. AND WE FOUND OTHER EVENTS DUE TO HUMAN ERROR, SLOPPINESS AND COMPLACENCY BY PLANT WORKERS. |
CANDU (and all other reactors) are designed with the expectation that systems will fail, that power to important functions will cease. Therefore the reactors are designed with several levels of systems and back-up power. CANDU 6 reactors, like Gentilly-2, have two separate and independent shut down systems aside from the normal operating system which can also shut the reactor down. One shut down system uses shut off rods that are held out of the core by electromagnets - the loss of electricity, even briefly, causes the rods to drop into the core and rapidly shut off the fission process.
In addition, there are multiple barriers and additional systems to keep the reactor fuel cool and contained, preventing the release of radioactive materials. The very presence of large amounts of water will cool the fuel for long periods, even without power for pumps and cooling systems.
|
|
[Dec. 6, 2003] (s/upette) C'est deux par adulte. IN CASE "OF" A DISASTER, EVERY RESIDENT WITHIN 8 KILOMETRES HAS BEEN GIVEN IODINE PILLS AGAINST RADIATION. BUT IS THAT ENOUGH?
[Céline Germain/Champlain Resident]
[Diane Lanouette/Champlain Resident] |
Iodine pills (potassium iodide) are intended to be taken only if a situation warrants it, and only if authorities decree their use. These pills will saturate the thyroid gland with non-radioactive iodine, preventing thyroid uptake of iodine-131, a short-lived but common fission product.
The potassium iodide pills are only a small part of the extensive plans that Hydro-Québec is required to maintain and update for all sorts of possible events. These events, while possible, are highly improbable - much less likely than all sorts of other risks we take in our daily life (e.g. automobile accidents). The following documents are available on the BAPE web site, courtesy of the Ministère de la sécurité publique and Hydro-Québec:
Although the general public is unaware of it, there are emergency preparedness plans in municipalities neighbouring other types of industrial facilities with the potential for releasing hazardous materials. One example is the petrochemical refineries in Montreal's East End, where there is always the risk of releasing poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas. Unlike nuclear reactors, the equipment in refineries is not housed in containment domes. Whereas a sufficiently high radiation dose might cause cancer after a latency period of twenty years, poisons like hydrogen sulfide kill within hours; there are no pills distributed to neighbours of refineries to protect against poison gas. The same goes for other chemical plants, such as the chlorine plant in Bécancour, near Gentilly-2. Among the other types of plants often requiring emergency preparedness are hydro dams (Quebec had tragic experience with these a few years ago, following unusually heavy rain), and large fuel storage depots (gas, oil) and high-pressure long-distance natural gas pipelines.
|
|
AS IT CHURNS OUT JUST 3 PER CENT OF QUEBEC'S ENERGY, GENTILLY 2 IS ALSO AGING PREMATURELY. SUPPOSED TO LAST UNTIL 2013, THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHLORINE LEAKS, HYDROGEN LEAKS, CRACKED PIPE WELDS AND BLOCKED FILTERS.
HYDRO NEVER PREDICTED IT WOULD AGE THIS QUICKLY WHICH RAISES THE QUESTION...WHAT ELSE WASN'T PREDICTED?
[Edwards] That reactor is falling apart and they want to spend a billion dollars to fix it up. Why?
|
Complex machines have many parts and components, some of which wear out and require maintenance or replacement. For example, a twenty-two year-old car or airliner - the same age as Gentilly-2 - certainly experiences component wear requiring servicing. All the more so, if that car or airplane were running at full power 80% of the time, throughout the year, every year, like the nuclear power plant. A well-maintained machine can run for a very long time, as we commonly see with classic cars from the fifties and earlier.
In the case of nuclear plants, the maintenance and level of fitness for service are closely monitored, and reflect in their ability to retain their operating license, as well as in their annual capacity factor performance: A poorly maintained plant's capacity factor will continually decline, until its operation becomes uneconomical. Gentilly-2's average capacity factor has consistently been in the 80%-range, with over 90% CF in the winter months, when its power is most needed. The CNSC's 2004 Report Card on the Gentilly-2 Nuclear Power Plant Performance lists ten straight B's in the Equipment Fitness for Service category. In the CNSC's rating system, a "B" means "Meets requirements." Ten "Meets requirements" for Equipment Fitness for Service contrasts sharply with the claim that the "reactor is falling apart."
|
|
TWO YEARS AGO THE ESTIMATE FOR REBUILDING THE PLANT WAS $ 850 MILLION. IT'S NOW AT $1.2 BILLION.
[Rhéaume] The project is $ 1.2 billion dollars.
|
Major plant overhauls may be very expensive -- this is analogous to an engine overhaul in a car. The fundamental consideration is whether the benefit of the increased life of the plant (or car) is worth the price.
In the case of a generating station like Gentilly-2, the benefit of refurbishment for the utility - in this case Hydro-Quebec - is the continuing revenue from sales of electric energy produced by the plant, and the continued grid stability Gentilly provides to the demand region (i.e. southern Québec). For the planned 25-year operation following refurbishment, the total energy produced by the 675-megawatt plant will be between 120 and 130 TWh (terawatt-hours). This is worth some 6 to 7 billion dollars at today's wholesale prices.
There are operating, interest and miscellaneous costs that must be deducted from this revenue.
For example, in
|
|
BUT WE FOUND THIS AMERICAN STUDY DONE FOR HYDRO WHICH ESTIMATED THE ACTUAL COST AT $ 2.3 BILLION. CRITICS SAY IT COULD $ 3 BILLION. [Bennett] It's very difficult, very expensive. No one's ever actually done it on time or on budget. |
The American study presented costs in a very unconventional way : Rather than giving only the cost of the refurbishment project plus cost of replacement power, the study gave costs that include all operating expenses following return to service, right to the end of the service life of the plant, plus spent fuel storage and decommissioning cost.
That's sort of like calculating that your next car servicing will cost you the price of the repairs plus all subsequent operating costs (gas, tires, etc.) right up to when you decide to junk it. The study estimate doesn't include the revenue from the extra energy produced by the plant as a result of continued operation made possible by the refurbishment.
|
|
HYDRO INSISTS THE PLANT IS ALSO AN ECONOMIC POWERHOUSE FOR A DEPRESSED REGION. [Rhéaume] We have the spinoff of about 100 million dollar a year in the area of Trois-Rivières. We have 700 employees, permanent employees. AND HYDRO CLAIMS A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SUPPORT THE PLANT. [Todd van der Heyden] Is that true? [Diane] It's not true at all, at all. Not in here in Champlain. No, no, no. This is lying. This is lying. No, no, no. This isn't true at all. DIANE LANOUETTE SAYS MANY PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO SPEAK OUT. [Diane] Every person around knows people who are scared but they're afraid to talk because many work there.
|
Regarding public acceptance of Gentilly-2 in the region where it is situated, a poll concerning the refurbishment project was carried out in 2003. Of the 167,000 people in the region within a 32 km radius of the plant - including 75% of them in the city of Trois-Rivières - 69% are in favour (with 22% completely in favour and 47% in favour but concerned about risks), while 14% are not in favour but accept it anyway, and 17% are completely opposed (see BAPE document PR3-4, pages 32-34).
The 700 residents in the town of Champlain, across the river from G-2, were not nearly as favourable - with 47% "for," and 50% "against." But the population within a 10 km radius of the plant - comprising 5,300 residents, including those of the town of Bécancour, the municipality of Champlain, as well as Sainte-Marthe-du-Cap, and the Indian reserve of Wôlinak - were similarly favourable as those of the city of Trois-Rivières, with only 30% opposed and 68% in favour.
|
|
THERE'S ANOTHER REASON FOR KEEPING THE PLANT GOING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ECONOMICS.
[Edwards] Just the power of the atom, and the fact that it is connected with the atomic bomb, it puts you into councils and meetings and makes you a more important political entity than if you had no nuclear power. [Rhéaume] This is a very important asset for Hydro Quebec. [Todd van der Heyden] You want to stay in the nuclear game. [Rhéaume] Yeah. [Edwards] The nuclear industry is notoriously secretive. [Todd van der Heyden] Do you think people are being kept in the dark? [Céline] Of course. And they want to be kept in the dark. They don't want to realize. You don't want to move.
|
Sunlight and solar power are products of "the power of the atom" within the sun. Should we shun it because "it is connected with the atomic bomb"? The sun's heat also drives the weather and wind on the Earth, so we should presumably also shun sail boats, windmills and ocean waves.
Geothermal energy also stems from the heat of radioactive decay of uranium, thorium and potassium-40 within the Earth's interior. All this "power of the atom" was created eons ago in titanic nuclear explosions of stars. Historically, "the power of the atom" was in fact first applied to medical applications such as treating cancer - decades before anyone thought of building bombs. Particularly noteworthy is the early application of radium to the treatment of cancer in Montreal and elsewhere around the world. Nuclear medicine remains to this day the most important application of "the power of the atom", besides power generation, with worldwide use far more wide-spread than the nuclear arsenals of a handful of nations. To this is added the increasingly wide-spread use of food irradiation and insect and pest control. It is common to hear anti-nuclear claims of a connection between peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology, and nuclear weapons. It is rare to hear of connections made between chemical plants and conventional weapons, or between commercial airline jet planes and bomber aircraft.
|
|
SO WHO EXACTLY IS WATCHING OVER THE INDUSTRY? THERE IS AN AGENCY THAT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT - THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION. KEN LAFRENIERE IS THE CNSC'S DIRECTOR IN CHARGE OF GENTILLY 2.
[Ken Lafrenière/Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission] WE ASKED THE CNSC ABOUT THE RISKS AT GENTILLY. [Lafrenière] We take the health and safety of the public very seriously and we look at all information. [Todd van der Heyden] Do you think that's what they do? Do they put nuclear safety first? [Bennett] I think the nuclear safety they're referring to is the safety of the industry. CRITICS SAY THE CNSC IS TOO CLOSE TO THE INDUSTRY SUPPOSED TO BE MONITORING AND DOESN'T TAKE A LEADERSHIP ROLE. [Bennett] It doesn't have enough teeth and it doesn't have enough independence. [Lafrenière] We are totally independent. We make decisions based on the interests of the public and the government of Canada.
|
For information about the CNSC, see About Us. |
|
[Todd van der Heyden] Could you ask for a safety study to be done of the people? [Lafrenière] If required, the Commission has that power. BUT THE AGENCY HAS NEVER DONE ANY STUDIES OF ITS OWN ON HEALTH RISKS AT GENTILLY. IT SAYS THAT IS NOT ITS MANDATE. [Todd van der Heyden] So what is your mandate exactly just so I understand it? [Lafrenière] Our mandate or the Commission's mandate is to protect the health and safety of Canadians. SINCE 2002, THE CNSC ISSUES REPORT CARDS FOR CANADA'S SEVEN NUCLEAR PLANTS. BUT AGAIN THERE ARE QUESTIONS AS TO HOW EFFECTIVE THOSE REPORTS CARDS REALLY ARE. FOR INSTANCE, ON EVERY REPORT CARD GENTILLY'S BEEN ISSUED, IT'S RECEIVED A "C" GRADE FOR BOTH PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE AND RADIATION PROTECTION.
[Todd van der Heyden] So a "C" is acceptable? |
The CNSC regulates the nuclear industry, and makes sure that radiation levels in the environment surrounding the plant, as well as doses to employees within the plant, remain well below limits. The dose limits are extremely conservative, as regards any potential health effects. Lafrenière said that health studies could be ordered if required, but they are not required as long as the radiation limits are respected. Health studies cost a great deal of money, and there are far more urgent health care requirements elsewhere in the Province.
Regarding the CNSC Report Card on Nuclear Power Plant Performance: besides the two "C" grades, Gentilly-2 also received two A's (in Emergency Preparedness and in Safeguards) and five B's (including Nuclear Security and Environmental Performance). This occurred in May 2003, at the time of the original broadcast of this show, under the banner "On your side." In testimony before the CNSC on Sept. 12, 2002, inspectors from the commission said the plant is essentially being run safely and recommended its license be renewed for four years. The recommendation was accepted. The "C" in radiation protection program implementation had to do with in-house monitoring (including worker radiation doses and other safety issues), NOT with the environment surrounding the plant. The other "C" is for "organizational performance through the development and implementation of management programs, standards, processes and procedures," again unrelated to radiation in the surrounding environment.
The CNSC's Legend clearly states: Since "E = Unacceptable", all grades above "E" are acceptable. Thus a "C" rating is acceptable but below the CNSC's stringent requirements. Since the original broadcast of this show in 2003, things have changed. The CNSC issued its 2004 Report Card on Nuclear Power Plant Performance, and at the same time significantly increased the scope of its rating system, such that it now comprises 22 categories (with each sub-divided into "Program" and "Implementation," as before), whereas it was only 9 categories before. The 2004 grades G-2 received are 3 A's, 16 B's and 3 C's, in the "Program" category (in the "Implementation" category one of the A's is changed to a C, similar to 2003). Of particular note are the straight B's - ten of them - in the Equipment Fitness for Service category.
|
|
(s/upette Marcel) c'est a cause de radiation… IT'S A LACK OF RADIATION PROTECTION THAT MARCEL JETTE BLAMES FOR HIS ILLNESS. HE WARNS OTHER WORKERS ARE STILL AT RISK. [Marcel Jetté/Former Employee] Il y a des travailleurs encore qui vont etre exposes, pis qu'ils sauront pas la verite au sujet des risques encourus. Ca, c'est deplorable. "WORKERS WILL BE EXPOSED", HE SAYS "WITHOUT REALIZING WHAT THE REAL RISKS ARE. IT'S UNACCEPTABLE." AT 68, WITH INCURABLE CANCER, HE'S UNDER NO ILLUSIONS. HE SAYS A FEW PEOPLE UP AGAINST HYDRO QUEBEC AND THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS A DAVID AND GOLIATH BATTLE. [Marcel] Fermer ca le plus rapidement possible parce que c'est a risque, ca. "CLOSE IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE", HE SAYS "BECAUSE IT'S A RISK."
YET CLOSING GENTILLY IS NOT IN HYDRO'S PLANS. IT INTENDS TO REBUILD AND KEEP THE PLANT RUNNING UNTIL 2035. |
As stated earlier, AECB's Director General, Pierre Marchildon, wrote a letter to Marcel Jetté, dated 22 December 1998. Marchildon wrote:
"concerning your employment at Gentilly-2, I would like to inform you that according to the documentation check we have performed, the radiation doses that you have received in the periods from September 1993 to January 1994, and from April to July 1995, are 6.91 mSv [0.691 rems] and 18.04 mSv [1.804 rems] respectively. For radiation workers the trimestrial limit is 30 mSv [3 rems], and the annual limit is 50 mSv [5 rems]. From the above records, its clear that Mr. Jetté's radiation exposures were well below the legal limits. Also, from the preceding discussion above, it is clear that such small doses have an essentially zero chance of causing cancer in an individual. |
|
DIANE LANOUETTE WORRIES SHE AND OTHERS ARE WILL LOSE THEIR FIGHT AGAINST HYDRO AND THE GOVERNMENT. [Diane] They're powerful. That's what scares me. They're powerful and I don't trust the government. WHILE QUESTIONS REMAIN ABOUT THE ECONOMICS OF THE PLANT AND WHETHER IT'S A SECURITY RISK, ONE THING IS CLEAR FOR NOW - IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN GENTILLY AND CANCER. STILL CELINE GERMAIN HAS MADE UP HER MIND, SHE'S MOVING. [Céline] It's just because I know I cannot stay. I wish it didn't exist. I wish I had the news today that they would close the plant for good. I would stay here for the rest of my life.
[EXTRO NUCLEAR FALLOUT] |
The government regulations to which nuclear plants are subject are far stricter, with respect to radiation doses and environmental releases, than those that apply to nuclear medicine.
While activists seek to ban nuclear power plants, and seek public support of their goal by using radiation scare tactics, their position would be less hypocritical if they applied the same radiation standards to nuclear medicine.
Specifically, if every single antinuclear activist abstained from benefiting from nuclear medicine - including any sort of X-ray or nuclear medicine diagnostic or treatment procedure - then the level of hypocrisy in their arguments would drop drastically. Likewise, they should abstain from travel by airliner, thus avoiding elevated levels of cosmic rays (same goes for hiking in high-altitude mountain regions). Even more impressive would be processing the blood in one's body to remove the naturally radioactive isotope potassium-40, which contributes the majority of the approximately 280 billion nuclear disintegrations per year within each person, resulting in molecular lesions within cells (to add to the many trillions more molecular lesions induced by chemical oxidants unavoidably present as a result of normal biological metabolism). Of course they could hardly ask everyone else to make the same ideological sacrifice. Nor should they insist on the shutdown of nuclear reactors producing medical and industrial radioisotopes, such as the Cobalt-60 produced at Gentilly-2.
|