 | Home About Us Press Releases Reports Events Committees Join FARE Contact | |
| «Press Releases Does the CNSC believe THIS?? It appears to go against new scientific wisdom Here is the text of a letter FARE has sent to Michael Binder, chairman of the CNSC, responding to his dismissal of our criticism of the "Synthesis Report." We wanted him to confirm our understanding of what his agency appears to believe. If he replies, watch this space. Michael Binder Chairman and CEO Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street P.O. Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, ON K1P 5S9 Dear Mr. Binder, We have carefully read your responses to our criticisms of the “Synthesis Report,” and here is what we understand about the position of the CNSC. We hope you can write to confirm that our understanding is correct. 1. The CNSC believes that there is a level of radiation that is not harmful to human health. 2. The CNSC rejects the “No threshold” principle of radioactivity. 3. The CNSC believes there is no evidence that connects low levels of radiation to diseases, including various cancers. 4. The CNSC believes there are no health effects associated with living near nuclear facilities for many years, including Port Hope’s uranium conversion facility. 5. The CNSC believes there is evidence of abnormal health patterns in Port Hope, including excess deaths from hypertensive disease and some cancers, but that this is not connected to the nuclear industry. 6. The CNSC is basing this conclusion on the fact that levels of exposure to radioactivity in Port Hope are low. 7. The CNSC does not know what is causing those harmful health effects in Port Hope. 8. Your agency is taking no steps to find out. 9. The CNSC contends that the Synthesis Report has undergone scientific peer review in the full meaning of that term. 10. The CNSC believes that it is quite proper for the authors of its report to select the peer reviewers for it. 11. The CNSC believes a physicist is qualified to peer review a report on biological and health effects of a toxic agent like radiation. 12. The CNSC defines “safe” as “having an acceptable level of risk” instead of “free of risk.” 13. The CNSC did not consider the epidemiological study by Dr. Eric Mintz among the studies it reviewed because staff did not agree with it. 14. The CNSC did not consider the Hanford Study, as analyzed by Stewart and Mancuso, in the studies it reviewed. 15. The CNSC regards F.A.R.E.’s approach to causality as lacking any scientific merit. (F.A.R.E.’s position is that radioactivity is causative of cancer, and that if a disease occurs in excess numbers in an area of exposure to a cancer-causing agent, both good science and good ethics dictate that the hypothesis should be that there is a causal relationship, until proven otherwise). We look forward to your response to these specific understandings derived from your letters. | Scary map shows how much Cameco pollutes harbour CNSC says it must stop before low-level clean-up Does the CNSC believe THIS?? It appears to go against new scientific wisdom CNSC mystery: Was it qualified to say we're safe? Refuses to release qualifications of experts East Beach park contaminated with uranium No one is concerned Cameco lied: CNSC orders it to fix pipe Treatment systems "do not conform" Mayor's views on W-FIVE show are inaccurate Why do Health Canada, CNSC refuse comment? Write in to stop Cameco reopening polluting plant Make them clean up huge uranium spill More and more lies: Cameco's clean-up branded 'deficient' CNSC documents show lots more may be wrong  What we want regulator do do Full clean-up needed of leaking uranium Dust emissions top our concerns No targets or plan to curtail uranium Too expensive to clean up all of our waste? We need explanations of delays, extra costs FARE has issues with SEU plans at Zircatec Questions filed to CNSC concerning EA screening Zircatec gets blank cheque from CNSC No mention of concerns registered by FARE Rubber stamp for Zircatec and Cameco CNSC ignores concerns of nearly 300 intervenors Here we go again: CNSC fast-tracks SEU assessment CNSC changes rules to limit public input Evening Guide guilty on "sitting on sidelines" Panders to big advertiser instead of serving people FARE wins Canadian Environment Award Praised for stopping SEU and accurate research Uranium dioxide: We've found proof that it can burn Despite Cameco's claims, its own records don't lie How to register as an intervenor for Oct. 20 hearing CNSC coming to Port Hope and they'll hear an earful Poll: 78 percent of us want a panel review Council gets details of new public opinion poll: More oppose SEU than favour it "Reckless disregard" on fire protection Documents show how CNSC dropped the ball, and why we need a panel review FARE asks 44 questions about CNSC draft report Expects them to be answered before environmental hearings 3 groups demand independent review of SEU May 19 press conference held at Port Hope harbour 3 May 2005 - CNSC response to questions about neutron radiation Press Release 14 April 2005: Questions about Neutron Radiation 30 March 2005: Response from CNSC to FARE letter 26 March 2005: Letter from FARE to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 22 July 2004: Media Release (As read by John Morand) 22 July 2004: Research Sub Committee Statement - read by Patrick McNamara | |||||
| | | | | | |
admin@ph-fare.com P.O. Box 202 Port Hope, Ontario L1A 3W3 Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to admin@ph-fare.com. Copyright © 2005 Families Against Radiation Exposure, Inc. All rights reserved. Last modified: 15 April 2005 Archived Information » top of this page « administration |
About this issue:
Frequently Asked Questions
Port Hope Radiation Issues in the News
Radiation and Health Effects
FARE Newsletter
Web Links
External sites:
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
Energy Probe