Pages above:
Greenpeace warns of high levels of nuclear waste near nuclear plants
12 June 2007
Canada's CANDU nuclear reactors spew far more radiation in the form of tritium than those of other countries.
Enlarge Image
A report released by Greenpeace recommends that pregnant women and children under the age of four should not live within 10 kilometres of a Candu nuclear reactor in light of the latest scientific concerns about this particular nuclear waste.
We believe that the risk posed by tritium has been underestimated by the Canadian government, and are calling for a review of the latest scientific evidence on the harmful effects of tritium. We are not alone in asking questions about tritium. In 2006 the City of Toronto Medical Officer of Health called on the Ontario government to review the health implications of allowing such high levels of tritium in drinking water. [See http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/waterStandards.pdf PDF, 136Kb]
And back in 1994, Ontario's Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards (ACES) recommended that allowable tritium levels be drastically reduced. The government rejected this request and sided with Ontario Hydro, which claimed it would cost $1 billion to reduce tritium by the amount requested.
"Scientific concerns about tritium's hazards are inadequately recognized by Canada's nuclear regulators," says our study "Tritium Hazard Report: Pollution and Radiation Risk from Canadian Nuclear Facilities" [PDF, 444Kb]
The Canadian government currently allows radiation levels of up to 7000 Bequerels, or Bq per litre of water (a measure of radiation). The 1994 ACES report recommended that allowable levels be reduced immediately to 100Bq per litre and down to 20Bq/l by the end of the nineties.
With the province of Ontario set to build and refurbish $46 billion worth of nuclear reactors over the next few years, it is essential that the government set safety levels for nuclear waste that are truly safe.
OTHER INFORMATION
A forthcoming report on tritium by the UK Government’s Advisory Group on Ionising Radiation http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/advisory_groups/agir/index.htm
We believe that the risk posed by tritium has been underestimated by the Canadian government, and are calling for a review of the latest scientific evidence on the harmful effects of tritium. We are not alone in asking questions about tritium. In 2006 the City of Toronto Medical Officer of Health called on the Ontario government to review the health implications of allowing such high levels of tritium in drinking water. [See http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/waterStandards.pdf PDF, 136Kb]
And back in 1994, Ontario's Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards (ACES) recommended that allowable tritium levels be drastically reduced. The government rejected this request and sided with Ontario Hydro, which claimed it would cost $1 billion to reduce tritium by the amount requested.
"Scientific concerns about tritium's hazards are inadequately recognized by Canada's nuclear regulators," says our study "Tritium Hazard Report: Pollution and Radiation Risk from Canadian Nuclear Facilities" [PDF, 444Kb]
The Canadian government currently allows radiation levels of up to 7000 Bequerels, or Bq per litre of water (a measure of radiation). The 1994 ACES report recommended that allowable levels be reduced immediately to 100Bq per litre and down to 20Bq/l by the end of the nineties.
With the province of Ontario set to build and refurbish $46 billion worth of nuclear reactors over the next few years, it is essential that the government set safety levels for nuclear waste that are truly safe.
OTHER INFORMATION
A forthcoming report on tritium by the UK Government’s Advisory Group on Ionising Radiation http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/advisory_groups/agir/index.htm
Support Greenpeace
TAKE ACTION: Sign the Greenpeace petition to rename a nuclear power plant after Dalton McGuinty.
12 June 2007
Questions and Answers about Tritium
1.What is tritium?2. Is it dangerous?
3. What are its effects?
And other questions answered
