Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:
Oh well, if some lunatic declares that they should take the waste, THEY SHOULD TAKE THE WASTE ... no complaining now ... do what you're told. SCHNELL!! SCHNELL!
... because you say so ...
or they're bluddy NIMBYS
... because you sez so.
Well two different people in the thread has stated that the area must be seismically active because it's BC, and two different people have just flat out decided to attack the researcher/engineer and not the proposal.
I'd take the time to point out that you are half of each of those groups.
If you think the location is a bad location then explain why the location is bad. Saying that you don't want someone else's nuclear materials and it's their problem is a statement that is based off the belief that the location and materials will cause harm, and that other Canadians are somehow not Canadians because they live in a different part of the nation.
You can store nuclear materials just about anywhere you want and they will be safe. These long term locations are being selected for an engineered passively safe location for hundreds to thousands of years, which is a slightly different level of safe.
That's why they are limited in the possible number of locations that meet all the requirements.
Trying to dig a hole to store materials in the shield of northern Ontario and or Quebec, would likely be less secure than leaving materials on the surface with a covering of rock and dirt because of the water formations. Take a look at a map of the shield, it's simply covered in lakes because water collects in every slight depression.
Keeping the containers at the bottom of a lake in low oxygen and low temperature environment with corrosion resistant materials used would likely be safe for the highly dangerous life span of the materials (a few hundred years). The issue is that planners don't want the complication of having to recover the containers from the bottom of a lake when we decide to reprocess and reuse the fuel.
NIMBYism is the rejection of something that you admit needs to go somewhere, just so long as it's not near you.
$1:
They are under no obligation to take anyone's nuclear waste for any reason, full stop.
Who is they? People in Vancouver? People that live in the area? Maybe people in Washington state?
They whoever they are, are not going to be taking anyone's materials unless they wanted to because that's not what's being suggested. Materials are not going to be pushed on the residents to keep in their basements. It would be heading off to a storage facility in a mountain, operated by either a private owner, some public private partnership or the government outright under our atomic regulator.
$1:
The real NIMBY here is the dipshit idiot who wants to conveniently hide it thousands of miles away from his home province.
Well conduct a detailed engineering study and suggest a long term storage location in Ontario, if you think it's a case of Ontario NIMBYism.
NIMBY implies the location is suitable other than for it being near someone.
An off hand statement that any old place on the shield would be fine is a comically childish assessment. On par with a claim that all of BC is seismically active. Or that an engineer must be bad because you don't like something that engineer said, or provided a engineering report for.
jj2424 jj2424:
You better transport that shit via the US or the NWT cause it ain't coming through Alberta.
That's not a choice you personally get to make, and I'd ask what about all the radioactive material that is already transported into and through the province? What about the nuclear reactors already operational in the province?
Site Admin 
