The coming Canadian disaster

Posted 9.27.18

SHAWVILLE, QUEBEC | Last year the terrible flooding across West Quebec and now up to six tornados, with a super-dry summer and freezer-burn winter in between, pretty well puts to rest any arguments about climate change and the increasing chaos in weather systems. Chaos doesn't mean "bad," it means "beyond prediction". But that's old news.

What isn't so obvious is that conditions and events could get much worse. Correction: will get worse. Of course, weather conditons will also be good on some occasions -- that's the unpredictability factor. "Worse" doesn't only mean more tornados and bigger ones, more flooding, and bigger floods, it means that chaos can come at us from unexpected quarters, or from places we are over-looking.

Like Ontario's Chalk River radioactive dump proposal, and the entombment of the Rolphton reactor -- both near the shores of the Ottawa River, upstream from six or seven million Canadians.

Imagine flooding up there reaching the fabric-covered, above-ground, nuclear dump. Imagine a tornado ripping through that area, too -- does "ripping" include ripping opening a "geo-fabric" covering radioactive materials?

Yup. All of this, and more, is reasonably imaginable, and this year's local catastrophes reinforce these possibilities. Flooding might not carry heavy metals all the way to Montreal, but we can imagine several tornados spreading a carpet of radioactivity down the Ottawa Valley. It would be compared to Chernobyl.

The question isn't if the greatest disaster will occur, or a lesser one, or something far worse -- the question is, why are we even taking these chances? Why would we allow a gigantic radioactive mound in that location, and under these circumstances, at all? Why would we even take the chance?

When a clear possibility is so horrific, shouldn't we go out of our way to prevent even the possibility of that outcome? This is not alarmism. It's called the "Precautionary Principle" by experienced scientists and citizens.

An even more puzzling question is this: why are our provincial and federal members of parliament so strangely silent on this file? MNA candidate Andre Fortin (one of five here) has sailed through his re-election camapign without mentioning the Chalk River project. And we know our federal MP, has only mumbled a bit at the very start of the public discussion of the proposal, refusing to even entertain due diligence for the safety and health of his constituents.

The science here does not support such irresponsible decisions with these toxic materials. Only "scientists" in the employ of the nuclear agencies seem to support it, presumably, like our political reps, because they have a lovely big pension coming ther way if they can keep the lid on public dissent a little longer. Jobs will not be lost. The radioactive garbage is already in Chalk River (Well, yes, they do want to ship more waste there to make this a profit centre for the corporations now running Canada's nuclear industry.) And employees will be needed to maintain and patrol this radioactive waste.

Years later people will wonder why we had lost our minds around this time.

So why defend this program? They are told to do so. An election campaign is perfect time to point elsewhere and say, hey, we'll spend billions of taxdollars over there if you re-elect us. Which we will do. All proving that, yes, we have taken leave of our senses, especially those senses in positions of responsibility. Chalk River? Ever hear of it? Listen, they're promising to widen Highway 50, that's something.


Copyright © 2018 Fred Ryan/Log Cabin Chronicles/9.18