News   Jan 06, 2025
 856     0 
News   Jan 06, 2025
 1.4K     1 
News   Jan 06, 2025
 530     0 

Nuclear crisis in Toronto's eastern suburbs?

The problem is if you build them far away from urban centres then you have ugly transmission lines and losses of power from heat. Those transmission lines would be really high voltage to keep losses down and people whose lands are nearby would be open to high e-m fields.

If you think n-power is worth doing, putting it near an urban centre is probably the best place because

a) the government would have less ability to hide any problems - it would have to be safe
b) you are siting the plant near its demand

If you don't think it's safe then it's not worth doing anywhere.
 
Mac's reactor is tiny. Chalk River's reactors are for fuel processing. They are considerably smaller than the energy-generating units.

I'm still trying to get why mike goes on with fear-mongering?
 
yes the reactor is at Mac

www.science.mcmaster.ca/mnr/

I have no clue about big reactor meltdown vs small reactor meltdown. both sound bad. Regardless, i'll take Pickering Nuclear over Nanticoke Coal any day of the week.
 
But would you really take Pickering over non nuclear plants?

If the stats are right that residents in Durham that live within the 10KM radius of the plant are sicker then other GTA residents, does that not mean something?

Is having such a large nuclear plant in suburbs of a major city, really a good thing? When the plant was built there where not all these suburbs out there, and if it where to be built today the gov said they would not allow it in Pickering, due to all the people living there.
 
^ How much sicker are they? Seriously, it's like people who move near the airport then complain. The homes were built near the Nuclear plants, nobody forced them to live there. Coal smoke probably causes more illness due to they can polute from far away. I'm not saying build a nuclear plant on the Toronto docklands. But some responsiblity should fall on the developers and residents "if" the area is bad for the health. Perhaps a bufferzone against new development near the plant, but it shouldn't be shut down or anything.
 
So a nuclear plant was built and then people moved into the area. Just like, as El Chico said, an airport was built, and then people moved next door.

I really dont see what the point of this post is. People moved there because it was probably cheaper than moving someplace that wasnt near a nuclear plant. This isnt the first time people have lived near unhealthy areas. Ever been to Sarnia? Ever driven through chemical valley? Ever walked down a residential street where the smell of the oil refinieries was so strong you wanted to throw up? There is Hamilton and the steel plants. Cornwall and the pulp and paper plants.

If I can see a problem at all its that our society has created so many people stupid enough to move next door to a nuclear plant in the first place.
 
I thought my post was off focus.(or were you referring to the OP?). I guess I'm saying there a lot of other larger polluters affecting the GTA more then a Nuclear power plant which may actually be fairly benign. Some of the groups sourced in Mike's first post aren't really unbiased parties.
 
And this from The Toronto Star today.

---

Pickering settles on siren plan
To alert residents of nuclear mishap

Officials reduced units from 27 to 4
May 16, 2006. 01:00 AM
STAN JOSEY
STAFF REPORTER


Pickering residents could be hearing their sirens call before the end of the summer.

A compromise plan for alerting residents if a dangerous situation should occur at the local nuclear plant has received all of the necessary approvals, Mayor Dave Ryan said.

The new plan will see only four sirens installed initially instead of the 27 that had been planned.

"This is a happy medium between public safety and nuisance," Ryan said. "We have been told that these four locations will give us the coverage that is required."

The sirens were made necessary by the province's new plan for emergencies, drafted after the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.

A public alerting system is now required within a three-kilometre radius of Ontario's nuclear plants. But Ryan said never in the plant's almost 40-year history has there been an occasion when the sirens would have been needed to alert residents.

Pickering residents might hear the sirens later in the summer when they are being installed, and periodically during testing to ensure they are working.

Local officials say that if the sirens ever do go off, residents should go inside and tune in to local radio and TV stations, which would be broadcasting details of the emergency.

Some Pickering residents had complained that the original plan for 27 sirens was overkill,would fray nerves if they ever went off and lower property values. Under that plan, some of the sirens would have been placed on boulevards in front of homes or in back laneways.

All four sirens will be installed in industrial areas. They will be located at Bayly St., near the railway crossing east of Brock Rd.; Clements Rd., near the railway crossing east of Brock Rd.; Montgomery Park Rd., west of Brock Rd.; and Sandstone Manor, on the north side of the road.

Durham Region is responsible for installing the sirens under a program being paid for by Ontario Power Generation.

Ivan Ciuciura, the region's director of emergency planning, said plans for two sirens in Ajax and 17 in Clarington, around the Darlington nuclear plant, are being re-evaluated in light of the changes made in Pickering.
 
But would you really take Pickering over non nuclear plants?

If the stats are right that residents in Durham that live within the 10KM radius of the plant are sicker then other GTA residents, does that not mean something?

Is having such a large nuclear plant in suburbs of a major city, really a good thing? When the plant was built there where not all these suburbs out there, and if it where to be built today the gov said they would not allow it in Pickering, due to all the people living there.

Well mike, time to suggest what should replace nuclear. But before you type out an answer, be sure you understand the economic implications of what you will suggest, if you suggest anything at all.

The issue of illness within a particular radius around a nuclear facility already suggests something is very wrong with the data you are quoting. What kind of radiation emissions could be doing that? Does anyone provide information? All radiation emissions from a nuclear facility are easily measured. Funny, too, that only humans are getting sick. Small animals would be much more prone to illness from heightened levels of radiation, yet there are still all sorts running around the area, including many birds that hang out on the facility sight. Since natural background radiation is far higher than that emitted by a nuclear plant, the natural environment exposes us to far more radiation than a nuclear facility. It's kind of hard to hide from the world around you.
 
"So a nuclear plant was built and then people moved into the area. Just like, as El Chico said, an airport was built, and then people moved next door."

The difference here is 85,000 people already lived in Pickering and Ajax at the time the nuclear plant opened.

I agree that the odds of anything Chernobylish happening are really low, yet are there any other examples of nuclear plants being built so close to so many people?
 
If the stats are right that residents in Durham that live within the 10KM radius of the plant are sicker then other GTA residents, does that not mean something?

Do you have a reference for this?
 
Maybe not a reference, but a case in point (give or take)
flaherty_jim030424.jpg
 
Yeah, well maybe nuclear radiation explains his triplet sons. Y'know, Who Flaherty, What Flaherty,and I Don't Know Flaherty
 

Back
Top