April 2009

The Southwest Booster, April 30, 2009

Candidate not clear on nuclear stance

Editor

The NDP All Candidates Forum was in Swift Current on April 22 (that is those vying for the leadership of the New Democratic Party). That in itself is not earth shaking news, but what is news, candidate Dwain Lingenfelter, a long time promoter of nuclear power for Saskatchewan, when asked his position on increasing the electrical supply for Saskatchewan had not one word to say on his long time support for the nuclear option.

I can only speculate why Mr. Lingenfelter did not lay all his cards on the table. What is he trying to hide?

That is much like Brad Wall keeping quiet about his nuclear leanings until the provincial election was past. That would have been the appropriate time for electors to pass judgment on this dangerous and the most costly of all options.

To me it is beginning too look like the people of Saskatchewan could be letting themselves in for some expensive shocks in the not too distant future.

Henry Neufeld

Waldeck

____________________________

The Southwest Booster, April 30, 2009

Nuclear consultation process an insult

Editor:

In my view the Berger Inquiry set the standard for consultation on environmentally sensitive economic development.

Berger visited all 35 communities in the Mackenzie Valley as well as all the communities across the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Berger did not leave the communities until he felt he had satisfied the peoples need to communicate their concerns to their fullest extent. For the first time in Canadian history, the people were not to be bullied by big corporation and big government partnerships much to their surprise.

He eventually called for a 10 year moratorium in order to resolve critical issues concerning building pipelines down the MacKenzie Valley. To this day the pipelines are still at the planning stage.

This is our Berger Inquiry. The value added uranium projects proposed by the Saskatchewan Party and their partner Bruce Power will make a fundamental change to the nature of this province. It is a very risky economic venture with huge environmental concerns. Premier Brad Wall wants to go back to the old days prior to the Berger Inquiry when government and their corporate partners could do as they wished. Where token consultation was all that was required. We will get a two and a half hour consultation meeting for an area that covers several constituencies. For some it will require traveling over a hundred miles if they wish to attend in order to present their concerns or just come to be more informed. Some will have put hours into presentations that they may never get an opportunity to present because of time constraints.

The Saskatchewan Party and their corporate partners Bruce Power insult the people of this province with this sham of a consultation process.

William Gibbs

Swift Current

_________________________________________

The Leader-Post, April 29, 2009

Trespass law erodes rights

It was with rising concern that I read of the Saskatchewan Party's rejection of the amendment to Bill 43, The Trespass to Property Act, that recently passed in the legislature.

The Trespass Act (the first of its kind in Saskatchewan) will make it illegal for anyone to be on public property without the consent of the government. This will include persons who engage in demonstrations, protests and marches. Other provinces have similar laws, but Saskatchewan will be the only province where no exemption for peaceful demonstration or protest exists. This exemption was the subject of the amendment that the NDP opposition was trying to get accepted.

Justice Minister Don Morgan says the right to demonstrate exists whether spelled out in the Trespass Act or not, so no exemption is needed. If this is true, then why not simply spell these rights out as per the Manitoba legislation that the law is modeled on? The Manitoba law clearly sets out an exemption for peaceful demonstration, picketing and so on.

Saskatchewan's legislation tramples on the rights of every resident by curtailing their ability to gather in peaceful protest or demonstration if they so choose, without the permission of the prevailing government.

When governments take away the rights of citizens to peacefully demonstrate, one can only wonder what future legislation they are contemplating that they think residents won't like.

With issues such as nuclear power, changes in services offered by Crown corporations, privatization of public services and others looming, one doesn't have to speculate too hard.

Garry Hamblin

Hamblin is president, Canadian Office and Professional Employees Local 397.

Saskatoon

_______________________________

The StarPhoenix, April 27, 2009

First impression wrong

The lead of the story, Nuclear support unchanged: poll (SP, April 18), was: "More Saskatchewan residents support nuclear power and uranium refinement than oppose it."

Many readers often skim through articles, noting the headline and first few sentences and then move on to other items.

Unfortunately, that first impression would have been that people generally support nuclear development in Saskatchewan. However, a further reading of the poll results shows that only a minority (28 per cent) strongly support the nuclear option while another minority (24 per cent) strongly oppose it.

That leaves a large number of people somewhere in the middle or without any opinion. As well, that poll also indicates that the number of those supporting the nuclear option has shown a small decline in the past few years.

Poll results usually should be taken with a big helping of salt, but even if one were to take this one seriously, its findings point to the need for an honest and thorough discussion on all of the aspects of the proposed nuclear power development.

The "forums" on the issue presented by the nuclear industry and sponsored by the chamber of commerce in the Battlefords and elsewhere are hardly objective. They are being conducted with one purpose: To convince us that building a nuclear plant is a good idea.

The provincial government, too, has a singularly focused campaign to that end I'm alarmed by the short time allotted to any discussion before a decision is made. We deserve more from our government.

Russell Lahti

Battleford

____________________________________________

The Leader-Post, April 24, 2009

Evaluate all options

There are two alternatives to meeting Saskatchewan's future power needs: One includes nuclear power and the other consists of wind, solar, hydro, and pretty much everything except nuclear.

We are being asked to choose.

The problem is that our government has provided us only a nuclear- industry driven report. The government should have, and still should, ensure we have an independent and unbiased report comprehensively comparing the cumulative effect of alternative energy mixes.

The comparison should be in terms of effects on taxes, utility rates, environment, and job opportunities for

the existing million citizens of this province, and on their descendants. Public consultation should not be shut off until we have this information.

I oppose nuclear power at this point, not because I understand the issue completely, but because it's obviously being rammed down our throats to satisfy industry special interests.

Don Gunderson

Regina

__________________________________

The Southwest Booster, April 23, 2009

Strong stance against nuclear option

Editor:

It is with humble dignity that I write this letter regarding Bruce Power and the proposed nuclear power plant proposed for Saskatchewan. My personal, reasonable, answer is no. I do not want this type of facility within our province.

My reasons:

1) Possible contamination of water, air, plant life, and human life from radioactive gas and nuclear waste.

2) Unsecured safe storage of spent nuclear byproducts forever.

3) Water use that should remain for human, wildlife, livestock, farm and ranch use. It should remain uncontaminated from nuclear waste products.

4) The high cost to Saskatchewan people for decontamination for the next 500,000 years.

5) Storing casks containing spent nuclear reactors deep within the Cambrian Shield Rock is a very bad idea, as rock is somewhat porous, allowing for water entrance to corrode and eventual leakage of radioactive product to the surface and into our water systems, causing great health risks for future generations.

While attending the Bruce Power sales program in Lloydminster, I did not receive a straight, honest answer as to how Bruce Power would guarantee safe storage and disposal of spent nuclear reactors.

I remain against the building of a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan, now or ever.

Lets put our resources into renewable power resources instead.

Ronald Cox

Lloydminster

__________________________________

The Leader-Post, April 22, 2009

French muscle in on uranium

Murray Mandryk's "Playing the right ( and left) cards", (April 15 Leader-Post) misses an obvious point.

The Areva Group is a French based company with interests in uranium production in northern Saskatchewan. It is about 96 per cent owned by the government of France; representatives of the French government sit on its board of directors.

Areva Resources Canada Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Areva Group. The latter has a 30-per-cent share in Cameco's McArthur mine, a 37-per-cent share in Cigar Lake and a 19-per-cent share in Key Lake. McArthur is world's largest high-grade uranium mine; Cigar Lake is the second largest.

Thus, while parties of the left and right heatedly debate whether or not the Saskatchewan government should have an equity stake in Saskatchewan resources, supposedly owned by the people of the province, they seem untroubled by the fact that the French government has taken an ownership position in three of its largest uranium mines.

Dan Cameron

Regina

_________________________________

The Leader-Post, April 21, 2009

Let's open up nuclear debate

So the plot thickens. We now learn that Bruce Power has entered into an under-the-table agreement with a SaskPower union to promote the nuclear power plant option, to the exclusion of other options, and to help Bruce Power "manage" the communications around this issue. Was the provincial government aware of this deal? Does it approve of such tactics?

Having had our suspicions confirmed by the Uranium Development Partnership report that the government has all but made its decision about pursuing the nuclear option, and having been informed that citizens will have just two weeks to make their views known, and now having discovered that Bruce Power is working behind the scenes to help us make up our minds for us, it's time for the people of this province to demand an open and honest process for making a decision with such far-reaching consequences.

Bill Wall

Wall is not related to Premier Brad Wall.

Regina

_________________________________

The StarPhoenix, April 20, 2009

Wrong question posed

The Guardian Weekly reported in late March 20 that 80 scientists had met in Copenhagen and issued a desperate plea to world leaders to curb greenhouse gases or face ecological and social disaster.

Their view is based on studies that suggest global warming would strike harder and sooner than expected. Their anxiety isn't surprising, considering the failure of major polluting nations, including Canada, to take any significant action.

The Saskatchewan government's preoccupation with developing a nuclear powered generator, adding three gas-fired generators and exploring "clean coal" demonstrates that it pays scant regard to the most pressing issue of climate change.

The Uranium Development Partnership panel doesn't consider more wind generation as a near-future alternative in a province that has more wind available than anywhere else in Canada. Wind is rejected for its inability to provide base load at all times.

There will be times when the wind is not blowing and alternative sources will be required. However, compared to the down times of coal and nuclear, wind is more reliable. The same source that provides the base load when the proposed Saskatchewan nuclear generator is being maintained or refurbished could provide backup for wind and solar.

The question put to us should not be what added value can we get from our uranium deposits but what's the quickest and greenest way to satisfy our need for electricity and fulfil our responsibility to lower the risk of global warming. The answer should include conservation, wind and solar heat and, in the longer term, solar power as well as coal, gas and nuclear generation.

We need to insist the government finds the right answer to the right question.

John Bury

Saskatoon

_____________________________________________

The StarPhoenix, April 20, 2009

Survey misrepresented

The article, P.A. group pushes renewable energy (SP, April 7), reported that a survey conducted on behalf of the City of Prince Albert found 71 per cent of local residents favoured the development by Bruce Power.

A participant in the survey told me that the question asked was along the lines of: "Are you in favour of an investigation into the feasibility of a nuclear power plant in the area?"

A positive response was interpreted as support for the nuclear plant, even though respondents were only supporting an investigation. Presumably, if people had answered No, whoever is pushing the power plant would have interpreted that as people seeing no need for an investigation and as approval to build the plant.

The SP and other media reported the survey results as a majority being in favour of a nuclear plant rather than accurately reporting that a majority favoured an investigation. I wonder, if these stories that mindlessly repeat incorrect representations are the result of malice or simple incompetence?

Ian Burt

Saskatoon

_____________________________________________

The StarPhoenix, April 20, 2009

Nuke agenda disturbing

After hearing an advertisement for public input into the uranium industry, I read through the bios of the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) members and noticed not one of them represented environmental interests for Saskatchewan.

The government may try to convince people that naming Patrick Moore, a former member of Greenpeace, to the panel is sufficient. Unfortunately, his inclusion is not enough to make this group credible as Moore no longer is involved with Greenpeace because of his pro-nuclear stance.

The saskuranium.ca website encourages people to get involved and allows online submissions of comments. I counter this with another method of "getting involved" Demand a referendum on the nuclear issue by delivering petitions to the legislature.

Why was Saskatchewan chosen as a site for a nuclear reactor? Is it because it was assumed that with our small population with a lightly populated north that Saskatchewan is an "easy mark" to quietly slip in this radioactive nightmare?

Does Saskatchewan really need more electricity, or could it be more beneficial to develop less expensive solar, wind, hydro and geothermal methods and practise more energy conservation?

Saskatchewan people, now and in the future, deserve to live in a safe and healthy environment. To push us into expensive and potentially dangerous nuclear energy production and waste storage will certainly not attain this goal. The pro-nuclear agenda of our current government is greatly disturbing and warrants close examination by all forms of media and all citizens.

Vicki Strelioff

Saskatoon

______________________________________________

The Leader-Post, April 18, 2009

We don't need to go nuclear

I write to offer some alternatives to nuclear power.

- A series of hydro-electric dams on the North Saskatchewan River and perhaps the Saskatchewan River.

- Numerous urban and rural geo-thermal and solar-power installations.

- More wind-powered generation of electricity.

These projects can be built in small stages, while going into service immediately. (Similar to "pay as you go").

Capital costs would be much lower, more predictable and more controllable than any single-site power installation, particularly a nuclear electricity generating plant.

Upgrades to the electrical grid could be phased in over a long time period and upgrade requirements will be reduced.

In addition, spreading energy supply over a large area compared to one specific site increases the safety and security of supply.

The above approach would place Saskatchewan as a world leader, with a truly modern solution to energy supply.

Lawrence S. Eley

Regina

___________________________________

The Leader-Post, April 17, 2009

Powerful alternatives

I write regarding Murray Mandryk's April 11 column, "Former Calvert confidante good choice to chair nuclear consultation". Dan Perrins will provide the government with his assessment of public opinion on the recommendations of the Uranium Development Partnership, particularly nuclear power.

That process not withstanding, there are more compelling reasons why the nuclear initiative should be taken off the table. Firstly, as Mandryk reports, some Sask. Party people already appear to be recognizing the folly of a multi-billion dollar public investment in nuclear power. The design of the new nuclear reactors hasn't been proven. Because of the high concentration of energy in uranium the long-distance transmission of nuclear energy is less competitive with onsite generation. So, it is unlikely any long term sales to the U.S. or even Alberta could be realized.

For Saskatchewan to maintain a competitive position, SaskPower's purpose should be the generation of electricity at the lowest possible cost . . . not the upgrading of non- renewable resources at any cost. Along with the gas turbines and wind turbines already planned, SaskPower should develop one or both hydro sights remaining on the Saskatchewan River. The first plant could be up and running in less than eight years. Good for the environment and good for the cost of power . . . a win/win situation.

John R. McClement

Regina

_____________________________________________

The Leader-Post, April 14, 2009

Climate: we're on on thin ice

Tim Weiss, director of renewable energy at the Pembina Institute, spoke in Regina at a public meeting on April 2, organized by Clean Green Regina and the Regina Public Interest Research Group.

Two quotes used by Weiss stick with me. The first uses words borrowed from the 13th century Sufi poet Rumi: "Sit, be still, and listen, because you're drunk and we're at the edge of the roof." It warns of the increasingly dangerous situation we find ourselves in where the world's climate is being significantly reshaped in deadly ways along with the economic crisis of global capitalism.

Weiss then used a phrase by Wayne Gretzky: "Skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been." With trillions of public dollars being invested to moderate the economic crisis, it would seem a wise time to invest in the next economy -- the one we need to support and sustain a healthy biosphere for our children.

In Canada, hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on non-renewable, polluting industries that harm the environment.

Governments are giving money to subsidize carbon sequestration for the dirty fossil fuels industry and to shore up the high-risk nuclear industry.

The wise action is to "skate" to where the economy is going to be and create a safe, clean renewable energy system that includes conservation, wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.

"We're at the edge of the roof," let's carefully get to work!

Rick Ast

Regina

______________________________________________

Lloydminster Meridian Booster, April 10, 2009

Think what you want, but please think

Here with my own humble thoughts that I write on the heartthrob of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has been loved near and far with citizens born here spreading throughout the world. Each having loving memories of the beautiful summer skies. Saskatchewan is becoming the looming talk of our nation, the dark clouds of nuclear energy and uranium, bleeding our hearts, bringing no peace that is not very kind to mankind. Peace of mind is great for mankind. Peace is happiness you find from all that is dear to our hearts. Saskatchewan has been an enchanted land so walk a bit slower Saskatchewan, and leave a bit of colour, clear skies, roaring rivers of unpolluted waters, lakes glistening, rainbows of every colour. Saskatchewan fields of grain waving in the summer breeze. Spring is where everything rushes showing new growth. It will be another shameful day that Saskatchewan may become the Sick National historic site of the vast nuclear age. A black day, a sad day and a shameful day to see Saskatchewan going down this road while there are much safer renewable energies to explore and develop. The so called modern and enlightened ones seem to despise the less privileged by displaying their greed of materialism of some members of the ruling class that may well wreak havoc to our beautiful Saskatchewan. Among the political leaders there is little honesty of transparency of purpose. Only the personal pursuit of fame and fortune living in luxury at Saskatchewan’s expense. Is this your agenda? The question to Saskatchewan is what are you going to do about it? We have an opportunity to be a vibrant Green society by building upon our all natural renewable resources starting today. The Saskatchewan government nuclear report offers no clear recommendations, with only one course to recommend and answer the questions laid out by vested pro nuclear quietly. Instead Saskatchewan build all your new developments from new housing, shopping malls, city halls, new police barracks, schools. Build them with clean renewable resource power. Think green. Think clean green power. Most of all please think.

Ron Cox

Lloydminster, Sask.

_____________________________________________

The Leader-Post, April 9, 2009

The recent report on doing further investigation on nuclear energy generation causes me great concern. The real cost of developing nuclear energy is high if we have to factor in the safe storage of the waste for years beyond our imagination.

Here is a modest proposal. Instead of spending the money to generate nuclear energy, why not create a mandatory program to move all current and future buildings to geothermal energy? The amount spent would likely be cheaper than a nuclear reactor and would have a positive impact in reducing consumption on a permanent basis with little negative environmental impact. Would this be more logical?

Denis Garand

Regina

_____________________________________________

The Leader-Post, April 9, 2009

We would like to voice our opposition to any nuclear power plants in this province. We have an opportunity to lead the world in sustainable solar and wind power, yet we appear to be stepping backward by embracing a power source that is not sustainable, dirty and leaves a legacy of waste that the world's brightest scientists still have not figured out how to handle, long term. Creating a million-year legacy of toxic waste with no plan as to its long-term disposal should be viewed as a crime against humanity. And what plan could cover a million years?

We could take the approach that we are going to be here forever, so we should use power sources that will have no long-term liabilities for our children and the planet, and that, of course, leaves only solar and wind. Imagine if our Saskatchewan government led the world in sustainable power by mandating that all new construction (residential and business) has to co-generate the same amount of watts as its square feet? So a new 1,500 sq. ft home would have to co-generate 1,500 watts of power by solar or wind, (about a $15,000 additional cost). Or we could add to the growing liability of nuclear waste that we are arrogantly handing to our children and the future. The choice seems obvious to us.

Dave Fries & family

Zehner

_____________________________________________

The StarPhoenix, April 9, 2009

Nuclear energy, tarsands akin to crucifixion

The shocking truth about nuclear energy and its appalling risks to ecological integrity -- including to human health -- has been well documented in many different sources.

Less often is there any comment on the religious or spiritual significance of such development.

As an Anglican priest who has studied ecological theology for many years, I can only name such things as nuclear energy development, tarsands exploitation, and virtually the whole big oil industry in one way: an assault on the body of God.

From a Christian perspective, divinity is embodied uniquely in the historical figure of Jesus, but God is also incarnate in the whole living earth. Let's protect God from the threatened crucifixion of nuclear and tarsands development.

Rev. Shawn Sanford Beck

Ecumenical Companions of Sophia

Saskatoon

_____________________________________________

Prairie Messenger, April 8, 2009

Saskatchewan should embrace renewal power sources

The Editor: The Government of Saskatchewan needs to resist pressure from the United States to build nuclear reactors on the North Saskatchewan River because the Americans are concerned about future shortages of natural gas and water and want our oil. Let Saskatchewan follow the example of Germany and embrace renewable power sources and conservation and call on the Americans to do likewise.

Nuclear expansion everywhere in the world is very costly and always requires government subsidies. Both Americans and Canadians need to pursue conservation of energy and renewable sources that will not leave a big carbon footprint. Nuclear development leaves a big carbon footprint both in building facilities and transporting ore. Developing solar, wind, and geothermal will bring many more jobs to the province than nuclear development and the dollars will go around inside the Saskatchewan economy. We could educate many skilled tradesmen from among the youth of the native population to retrofit present homes for energy efficiency.

Saskatchewan does not need extra power for its small grid. We need to pay off our debt instead of blowing our provincial budget.

Furthermore, why would we want to do business with Areva who owns 40 per cent of Bruce Power and is in disgrace over delays and cost overruns with the reactor it is building in Finland and is begging the government of France, its owner, for more subsidies.

Minister of Enterprise and Innovation Lyle Stewart announced April 1 that the people will decide whether or not Saskatchewan will adopt nuclear power. Let the government not stoop to cooking up any green washing survey questions a la the Prince Albert Board of Trade who gleaned support for a "Clean and Green Power Source" by not ever using the word "nuclear."

Nuclear power generation for the 21st century is a discredited choice because it is extremely expensive and environmentally irresponsible. Nuclear power is falling out of favour around the world. The Government of Saskatchewan will be taking a step backward if it subsidizes nuclear reactors.

Lois Weber,

Wilkie, Sask.

_____________________________________________

The StarPhoenix, April 8, 2009

Use P.A. mill site to produce hydrogen

With reference to the proposed nuclear development in Saskatchewan, it is interesting to read the very sensible and excellent letters appearing in this paper, few of which are in favour of nuclear development -- for very good reasons.

A search for a safe disposal method for nuclear waste has been pursued for the last 60 years and has not yet been found, in spite of millions of dollars spent.

Safe, renewable sources are available and will provide cheaper power in the long run, with no environmental or health hazards. It is not true that solar and wind power is unreliable because they lack a means of storing the power when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. A relatively simple way is to produce storable hydrogen to be used as necessary to produce the power.

In Prince Albert we are uniquely placed to do this. There is an empty pulp mill, which is unlikely to be used for its original purpose again. We have here a large building complex, water extraction and treatment plant on site, a new power line to the Archie Campbell Power Station with access to the grid and lots of already cleared land for solar power units. Internal combustion engines can be readily adapted to run on hydrogen to power the generators.

Hydrogen is easy to produce and store and isn't as dangerous to handle as gasoline, which we seem to manage efficiently and safely.

John C. Burt - Prince Albert

_____________________________________________

The Southwest Booster, April 2, 2009

Nuclear energy is not sustainable energy

Nuclear energy is not sustainable energy and is not the solution that an aggressive marketing campaign is making it out to be.

It is extremely expensive (the last plant completed in Ontario was billions of dollars over budget) and poses environmental and health risks.

As of 2000, Canada had 35,000 tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste and nowhere to put it (David Suzuki Foundation). Why would we compound this problem?

There are also concerns - with projected water shortages - about the huge volumes of water required, and with water quality itself.

As nuclear power plants age, there are safety issues such as emission of radioactive material and possible contamination of drinking water.

What about the costs of accidents, cleanup, waste disposal, and plant decommissioning? Reactors already built have required refurbishing costs equal to the original construction cost after only half of their projected operating life.

We should not be spending exorbitant amounts on nuclear energy when there are far less expensive, safer, more reliable, and truly sustainable energy options such as wind power and solar energy, which can be employed very quickly and which also create many jobs.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we have to do better.

Therese Jelinski - Prince Albert

__________________________________________________________________________