CNSC response to the opinion article published in Le Nouvelliste on March 1, 2010 entitled “Les Québécois peuvent encore dire non”

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) would like to clarify some of the misrepresentations contained in the opinion article published on March 1, 2010 entitled “Les Québécois peuvent encore dire non”.

The Canadian nuclear industry has over 30 years of safe operation, driven in no small part by the stringent standards set by the CNSC.  While it will not be for the CNSC to decide on the future energy mix of any province, it will not stand for unsupported criticisms of the strong safety and environmental record of nuclear facilities operated under its watch. 

Uranium mining is the most heavily regulated mining activity in Canada.  Instead of criticizing uranium exploration and mining activities that have been shown to have no adverse impact on health, the authors should direct their efforts to lobbying to bring all other industries up to the high standards imposed on the nuclear industry.

All waste generated by nuclear activities is currently, and will continue to be, stored safely and securely at facilities licenced by the CNSC.  Through the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, the industry was charged with developing a long term solution for the permanent storage of used fuel.  It was successful and a sound, government-approved plan is in place.  Under the plan, the construction and operation of the eventual facility, is being entirely funded by the industry that is producing the waste.  The CNSC, through its regulation of financial guarantees for major nuclear facilities, ensures that appropriate plans, and money to fund them, will be available when needed.

The CNSC relies on the expertise of scientists, engineers, doctors and accredited experts in fields relevant to its work.  It is disappointing to observe the unfortunate fear mongering of some local medical doctors who have been circulating misinformation to the community. While they make a point of citing their credentials or affiliations in the article, the statements in the article are based on unsubstantiated beliefs rather than scientific fact.  It is disappointing to see the respected David Suzuki Foundation granting the use of its name in the promotion of junk science.

The CNSC goes to great lengths to fulfil its mandate of protecting the health, safety and security of Canadians and the environment, basing its decisions on science rather than ideology.  It would never grant a licence unless a facility has been proven to be safe.