Submitted by KE (not verified) on Sat, 2010-08-28 11:42.
So, what are we asking here?
I agree that we shouldn't be complacent about the potential dangers of nuclear waste transport, but I am unclear on the most useful position to take regarding this matter.
In order to effect change in this matter it is necessary to participate in the hearing on Sept 29th, via letter or in person or both. Written confirmation of this "intervention" must be presented by Sept 13th to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC.)
So are we asking them to conduct an additional environmental assessment specifically for the transport of the low grade nuclear waste? Or are we asking them not to transport the waste at all?
While I am concerned about nuclear power and all of the related safety issues, I am by no means an expert and I'd love some clarification or feedback about what the "best-case scenario" here would be! Thanks!
Bruce Power Hearing?
I agree that we shouldn't be complacent about the potential dangers of nuclear waste transport, but I am unclear on the most useful position to take regarding this matter.
In order to effect change in this matter it is necessary to participate in the hearing on Sept 29th, via letter or in person or both. Written confirmation of this "intervention" must be presented by Sept 13th to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC.)
So are we asking them to conduct an additional environmental assessment specifically for the transport of the low grade nuclear waste? Or are we asking them not to transport the waste at all?
While I am concerned about nuclear power and all of the related safety issues, I am by no means an expert and I'd love some clarification or feedback about what the "best-case scenario" here would be! Thanks!