Editorial Uranium improving the quality of life

Ontario Hydro is proud of its nuclear reactors, and rightfully so. More than one-third of the province’s power is generated by nuclear fuel at a cost that is probably the cheapest in the world. Nuclear generated power has proven itself to be reliable, clean and safe. Ontario’s nuclear generators are a prime example of how nuclear power can improve the quality of life.

Yet the use of uranium — not only in generating electric power, but in its many other applications — continues to be maligned by some special interest groups. Their arguments generally centre on moral values, linking uranium production and use to atomic weapons through guilt by association in a way a citizen of Germany, for example, might be linked to the horrors of fascism during the Second World War.

For example, the widely-known organization Greenpeace in the past has accused Canadian uranium producing companies of “exporting death.” That kind of name calling not only overlooks the wide use of nuclear commodities in medicine for diagnosis and for treatment, it also implies that Canada should not export steel because steel can be used to make weapons.

Arguments against nuclear energy usually arise from a desire to find simple solutions to complex problems. The “technology- out-of-control” syndrome of the 1970s that gives rise to anti- nuclear power arguments still survives, but public awareness of the benefits of nuclear power have dulled the impact of such special interest groups if not their rhetoric. Even the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1984 was unable to revive that simple view that makes nuclear power a pure and simple villain.

In fact, Chernobyl had virtually no impact on the growing demand for nuclear power. It is still seen as the way of the future. People in developed nations and Third World nations — particularly those in Third World nations who cannot afford power generated by fossil fuels and do not have hydroelectric generating capacity — are demanding access to the undeniable benefits of nuclear power.

Nuclear fuel is not perfect, to be sure, but it is safer and cleaner than other fuels. As far as contaminating the atmosphere is concerned, radiation from nuclear power plants is about one- fiftieth that received, on average, for medical and dental purposes. It is about one-tenth received from sunlight, one per cent of that received from all natural sources.

Radiation from nuclear waste can, indeed, be harmful — even fatal, if one is exposed to an intense source for a long enough time. But Aspirin, too, can be fatal in large enough doses as can virtually every other substance. But nuclear radiation as a cause of cancer, for example, ranks ninth causing one out of every 2,000 cancers expected to be found in a population sample of 10,000 people. Diet is accountable for 35 cancers out of 2,000, tobacco for 30, sunlight for two.

And claims about problems concerning waste disposal are often even more greatly distorted. All of the fuel bundles used in Canada up to the end of 1987 would only fill an ordinary skating rink to the top of the boards. While the spent fuel is extremely dangerous when first extracted from the reactor — after being in use for 18 months — after just one year its radioactivity is reduced by a factor of 100, by a factor of 1,000 after five years. While it will not be safe for casual handling for about 300 years, the critical stage for storage passes after five years.

Of all the environmental pollutants that society generates, nuclear waste is the only one which can be contained, monitored and controlled.

Environmentally, nuclear power is indeed a blessing. To generate the same amount of power as Ontario Hydro has generated from nuclear power would have released four million tons of acid gas into the atmosphere and produced nine million tons of ash. The ash alone would require about 90,000 skating rinks each of which could house all of the nuclear waste generated by Canada to date.

When the question arises whether Canada should mine and sell uranium at all, the answer is yes. Economically the benefits are obvious: 31,000 jobs created directly by the industry, $3.6 billion contributed to the economy each year, a 25% saving in electrical power generation costs, creation of a high-tech industry (designing and building CANDU nuclear reactors) as well as the benefits to other industries and the benefits in health and medicine.

Perhaps just as important, however, is our moral duty to pass on the natural resources with which Canada was endowed and the expertise we have developed so that others may enjoy the benefits we do. To deny others the use of nuclear power condemns the world to increasing use of more costly, more hazardous fuels, already in dwindling supply, and condemns it to using old technology to solve increasingly complicated problems.

The truth is that uranium is a wonderful resource that has let mankind take a large step toward improving the quality of life for all. It is a gift that has placed great responsibilities on us, but the potential it gives us for improving the world’s standard of living should not be allowed to slip away through ignorance and misunderstanding.