Friday, November 30, 2012

12.1-2 A Mountain of Waste 70 Years High: Ending the Nuclear Age

“Won’t you please come to Chicago – no one else can take your place!  We CAN change the world!…”– Graham Nash
A Conference observing the 70th Anniversary of the 1stsustained chain reaction, and the birth of the Nuclear Age
On December 2, 1942, an experiment at the University of Chicago led by Enrico Fermi produced the world’s first human-made sustained chain reaction, and launched the Nuclear Age.  The Nuclear Age has not been kind to everyone –  beginning with the people of Japan.   The Faustian bargain continues to this day – with the Japanese again becoming nuclear victims after Fukushima, and the world threatened by the continued presence of both nuclear weapons and nuclear power radiation releases and wastes.
Building on the observation of previous conferences first 40, then 30 years ago, this Conference notes that to this day, not a single ounce of radioactive waste has been permanently disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner. And it bears witness to those fellow humans to whom the Nuclear Age has been less than kind.
This is a call to come to the very birthplace of the Nuclear Age – memorialized by Henry Moore’s sculpture to Nuclear Energy (photo above), on the very site where Fermi’s experiment occurred – to remember its victims, and seriously question whether that Age has the right to continue among civilized human beings.
For more information, to offer help, or make tax deductible contributions:

Watch the Chicago conference on radioactive waste LIVE! 

Watch the Chicago conference on radioactive waste LIVE! You can catch the presentations on December 1 and 2 at the Mountain of Waste 70 Years High conference in Chicago on live stream! We hope you can tune in over this important weekend which marks 70 years since the Fermi team created the first self-sustaining chain reaction at the University of Chicago. The conference is being held at the same site.

December Conference: A Mountain of Waste 70 Years High: Ending the Nuclear Age | Nuclear Energy Information Service

In response: Restarting reactor a reckless proposal | San Onofre

Patrick Moore is entitled to his opinion on Southern California Edison and the crippled nuclear reactors at San Onofre (“The future of California’s energy portfolio,” Nov. 15). But your readers should be aware that he is a paid mouthpiece for the nuclear industry. His Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was created by the Nuclear Energy Institute to promote expansion of nuclear energy.

So it’s not surprising that on the crisis at San Onofre he parrots Edison’s party line: They won’t restart until it’s safe to do so. But this spin is simply not credible.

Edison’s proposal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to restart reactor Unit 2 reveals that they have no repair plan or even a timetable for fixing the plant’s damaged steam generators. Instead they propose to operate a broken reactor at partial power and see what happens. It’s a reckless experiment – the same profits-before-safety thinking that drove Edison to replace the original generators with an unproven and unlicensed design that failed in less than two years.

Nuclear power is not clean, safe or efficient – and further, makes no economic sense. The future for California lies in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and the state is well on the way. More than 10 percent of California’s electricity is already provided by solar, wind, biomass or geothermal power, and by law the state must reach 33 percent from renewables by 2020. By then renewable energy will create up to half a million jobs in the state.

The real cost of nuclear energy is too great for California to bear. San Onofre must remain shut down. – Damon Moglen, Energy and Climate director, and Shaun Burnie, Nuclear Campaign adviser, Friends of the Earth, Washington, D.C.

In response: Restarting reactor a reckless proposal |


San Onofre: Laguna Hills meeting no substitute for formal court hearings

Posted Nov. 30, 2012 / Posted by: Becca Connors

Friends of the Earth: Public safety must be priority, not securing restart of nuclear reactor

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Tonight Southern California Edison will present to federal regulators its controversial plan to restart one of the crippled reactors at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Friends of the Earth, which is seeking a formal hearing on the reactors’ future, said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must put the safety of Southern Californians ahead of Edison’s reckless restart plan.

Tonight’s meeting in Laguna Hills, Calif., promises to be a tightly choreographed exchange of highly technical information between Edison and the NRC, with severely limited opportunity for public comment and no room for meaningful questioning.  Such a meeting is no substitute for a public adjudicatory hearing with presentation of evidence and an opportunity to cross-examine  expert witnesses, which is what should result from two official proceedings opened by the NRC earlier this month in response to a petition by Friends of the Earth.

“Edison is pushing hard to get NRC approval for what amounts to a reckless experiment with the lives and livelihoods of the 8.4 million people who live within 50 miles of San Onofre,” said Damon Moglen, energy and climate director for Friends of the Earth. “This critical matter should not be considered in another informal meeting, in which the audience is silenced and removed from the real process despite their demands for independent public input and oversight.  This matter should be considered in NRC proceedings designed to thoroughly examine the important questions:

Should the design changes Edison made that resulted in the failure of San Onofre’s steam generators have been allowed without an amendment to the plant’s operating license; and,

Should this experimental restart plan be allowed to go ahead without subjecting it to the rigorous license amendment process which would have in all likelihood caught these design failures in the first place?”

In response to a petition from Friends of the Earth, on Nov. 8 NRC commissioners directed the agency’s staff to consider whether Edison should have been required to seek a license amendment before installing replacement steam generators that were of a dramatically different design than those the plant is licensed for. The commissioners also directed the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to consider whether Edison’s restart plan requires a license amendment.

San Onofre’s reactors have been closed since January, after a leak of radioactive steam led to the discovery of widespread and unprecedented damage to the steam generator tubes. Edison is now proposing to restart reactor Unit 2 at partial power, even though it has made no repairs and has not detailed plans for future repair.  The controversial restart proposal has been widely criticized as a reckless experiment which could lead to a nuclear disaster.

Damon Moglen, (202) 222-0708
Bill Walker, (510) 759-9911

Climate & Energy Blog | Friends of the Earth

7 things you need to know about the Darlington nuclear refurbishment

Krystyn Tully, Weekly
November 29th, 2012

The Darlington nuclear facility sits on the shores of Lake Ontario, roughly 60-kilometres east of Toronto.
Two hundred people will gather at Hope Fellowship Church in Southern Ontario next week to discuss how to rebuild Lake Ontario’s largest nuclear power plant. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is holding a three-day hearing to assess the impacts of the plant before issuing an operating licence. CNSC staff, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) staff, and some 93 intervenors will make presentations on December 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Here’s what you need to know about the Darlington nuclear refurbishment:
1. Federal regulators are reviewing how the nuclear plant will be rebuilt, but no regulator has ever reviewed if Darlington should be rebuilt.
The licencing hearing puts the proverbial cart before the horse. It’s not clear that Ontario should include nuclear power in its future energy strategy. Energy demand is plummeting in Ontario, reports the National Post. There are more affordable, flexible alternatives to nuclear power, energy experts tell the Toronto Star. Energy imports could eliminate Ontario’s reliance on nuclear energy, Conservative Opposition Leader Tim Hudak told Windsor-area residents just last week.

“There is no evidence that refurbishing Darlington nuclear is the right choice for Ontario,” says Waterkeeper Mark Mattson. “Unfortunately, no one is willing to talk about whether Ontarians really need this project. So on Monday, it is Waterkeeper’s job to show up and remind people that the Darlington nuclear plant kills fish. It wastes water. And it doesn’t have to be this way.”
2. Rebuilding Darlington costs money. Between $6 and $10-billion.
The Ontario Minister of Energy estimates the cost to refurbish the Darlington nuclear plant will be between $6-10 billion. There is no plan to deal with cost overruns, because OPG is “confident” they will not occur. Financial services company Standard and Poor disagrees. S&P revised its outlook on OPG to “negative” this weak, citing amongst other factors the risk of cost overruns at Darlington.

3. Darlington nuclear power plant kills fish. Lots of them.
Internationally-recognized authorities on nuclear power plants agree that the out-dated technology included in the rebuild design is the most environmentally destructive technology on the market. Its impacts include:

  • killing endangered fish
  • threatening the reproductive efforts of other vulnerable species
  • killing increasingly large numbers of the forage fish that sustain Lake Ontario’s complex food web
  • futher destroying nearshore habitat in an area that’s already severely stressed and polluted

4. Darlington nuclear wastes water. Lots of it.
The Darlington nuclear power plant sucks in enormous amounts of water, 24-hours a day, 7 days a week. In fact, the plant sucks up enough water to drain an Olypmic-sized swimming pool in 15 seconds. The water flows through the plant once and is then dumped, at a higher temperature, back out into Lake Ontario.

5. The federal government agrees that it is possible to save fish and water. They just don’t believe it is important enough.
CNSC and Department of Fisheries and Oceans say they agree that using newer, readily-available cooling water technology to “close the loop” of water flowing in and out of the plant would save fish and save water. They just don’t think it is important now and, if it ever becomes important in the future, they will “adapt” then.

6. The “hearing” isn’t as formal as it sounds.
If you haven’t been to a Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission hearing, it sounds like a really big deal. We put on our suits. We sit quietly in our seats. We learn to address the chair and spell our names “for the record.” Translators repeat our every word in both official languages, broadcast through wireless ear-pieces. Strip away the physical appearance of the hearing, though, and it’s a pretty informal affair. Each presenter only gets to speak for 10-minutes. When you consider that just one organization like Lake Ontario Waterkeeper has 11-months worth of research to cover, prepared by four government-funded independent consultants, it is literally impossible to present even a summary of our most important findings to the Commission. Nothing we say is under oath, and no one who speaks needs to have any training or experience on the topic they cover, so the information the Commission does hear is often littered with spin, platitudes, and political talking points.

7. We can do better!
Decision-making isn’t rocket science. The standards for when and how to make decisions are fairly well established. (Hint: Actually making a decision is usually an important first step.) If we take our time, do our research, listen to the public, listen to independent experts, and commit to doing a good job, we can save money, save water, save fish, and save time.

Join the hearing:

Learn more:

7 things you need to know about the Darlington nuclear refurbishment
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

see also

DurhamRegion Article: Darlington public hearing agenda released

Plant has longterm effects - Queen's Journal

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Join the Buddhist March, Fast and Vigil to Decommission San Onofre

I hope that many more of you will come out to support the Buddhist Monks who are praying for us on Dec 5, 6 & 7th. The chant is very powerful and the more people the stronger and more effective it will be. Come sit and pray with us when you can.

Fast, Pray, & Walk for a Nuclear Free Future and | The Peace Resource Center of San Diego

The Peace Resource Center of San Diego and ROSE (Residents Organized for a Safe Environment) and the Peace Resource Center of San Diego are pleased to announce that four Buddhist monks, one from Washington state along with three others (from different parts of the country) will be coming to walk from Dana Point to San Onofre. They will then sit for 6 days in front of the plant and fast. 
Please come and join us in prayer and action in a peaceful & nonviolent way.  
All are invited to join this nonviolent action. You can join in the walk from Dana Point to San Onofre (all or part of the walk) and join in the fast as well (all or part). After they fast, we already have a place for them to break the fast and stay for a couple days to rest.  We encourage individuals to come and also welcome groups who might like to come

12.7 Closing Ceremony • Buddhist March, Fast and Vigil to Decommission San Onofre
via Gene Stone

We will have a closing Ceremony at 9:30 am to 10:30 am on Friday Dec 7 with our Buddhist guests on the beach just north of the San Clemente pier, please plan to attend.

• Join the Buddhist March, Fast and Vigil to Decommission San Onofre (facebook)

November 30-December 8
Directions to San Clemente Pier:
SAN CLEMENTE PIER Metrolink/Amtrak Station
615 Avenida Victoria
San Clemente, CA 92672
Inland Empire-Orange County Line
Orange County Line

Southbound: 5 Fwy South, exit Avenida Palizada; turn right on Ave. Palizada; turn left on El Camino Real; turn right on Del Mar.
Northbound: 5 Fwy North, exit Avenida Presidio; turn left on Ave. Presidio; turn right on El Camino Real; turn left on Del Mar

Parking: Good Reference =
I spoke w/ City of San Clemente and confirmed following info.

Street Parking is limited and METERED.

Metrolink/Amtrak Station Parking Lot has 144 spaces / 2 handicapped spaces (4 additional handicap parking spaces nearby beach); $1.50 per hour.

San Clemente Pier Bowl Parking, on Avenida Del Mar just north of Metrolink/Amtrak Station Parking Lot has numbered parking spaces and is free before 10am and after 5pm; between 10a-5p = $1.50/hr. HOWEVER, Time starts from when you pay the machine, so you need to pay for ALL the hours you expect to be parked there. Note your parking space number and go to one of the two automated Pay Machines. The machine accepts bills up to $10 and credit cards. Carefully read the instructions to make sure you pay only for the ammount of time you plan to be parked in the space.

ROSE (Residents Organized for a Safe Environment) and the Peace Resource Center of San Diego are pleased to announce that four Buddhist monks, one from Washington state along with three others (from different parts of the country) will be coming to walk from Dana Point to San Onofre. They will then sit for 6 days in front of the plant and fast.

Please come and join us in prayer and action in the peaceful & nonviolent way.

All are invited to join this nonviolent action. You can join in the walk from Dana Point to San Clemente Pier (all or part of the walk) and join in the fast as well (all or part). After they fast, we already have a place for them to break the fast and stay for a couple days to rest.

We encourage individuals to come and also welcome groups who might like to come.

Important! The walk will start in the Dana Point Harbor parking lot on November 30 at 9 A.M. and walk the 7 miles to San Clemente Pier. This is estimated to take 2-3 hrs. Please join us for all or part of the walk, remember to bring water. If you cannot walk with us please plan to join us at San Clemente Pier state at the arrival time of Noon for the start of the prayers and ceremonies.

We will need to raise money to pay for the Buddhist's campsite and some other expenses related to this event. Any amount that you can give will be appreciated! Donations to support the Buddhist March and Vigil can be made online through the Peace Resource Center of San Diego

Please indicate on the drop down donation function that your donation is for Shut San Onofre. All donations made through the Peace Center are tax-deductible as allowable by law.

Thank you.

From the Buddhist monks: "The name of our Japanese Buddhist order is “Nipponzan Myohoji”. We follow especially “Lotus Sutra” among various kinds of Buddha’s teachings. That is similar to “All life is sacred or all my relations” what Native people pray for. When we walk and pray outside we always chant our sacred word “NA MU MYO HO REN GE KYO” with beating of the scared drum."

11/30 Fri. Walk to San Onofre
12/1 Sat. Rohachi Fasting 1st Day 7am-5pm (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station)
2 Sun. 2nd Day 7am-5pm
3 Mon. 3rd Day 7am-5pm
4 Tue. Breaking Fast (4th Day)
5 Thu. 5th Day 7am-5pm
6 Fri. 6th Day 7am-5pm
7 Sat. Breaking Fast(7th Day)
8 Sun. Jodo-e Celebration (Buddha’s Enlightened Day) Move to LA
9 Mon. Rest Day
10 Tue. Peace Walk in LA
11 Wed. Move to San Luis Obispo
12 Thu. Walk from San Luis Obispo/Morrow Bay to Diablo Canyon

Please spread the word about this event to your friends! Depending on how many people want to join them in walking we may need to have a van and water to drive along with them, but we can work that out when we have some idea of how many folks want to join in.

Please check back for details and schedule as as they are added!

Gene Stone
Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE)

URGENT UPDATE! Due to the steam generator part being prepared for shipment in front of the plant emitting radiation, we have made a decision this morning that we will NOT be marching past the plant on Friday, 11/30. The March will still leave from the Dana Point Harbor parking lot at 9a as planned and will march to the San Clemente Pier. This will be a shorter march; details are being worked out. Do NOT go to San Onofre State Park for carpool, etc. as you would have to pass the generator pa
rt. Stay tuned ...

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Nuclear Hotseat #76: SPECIAL San Onofre Showdown w/NRC, SCE, Monks


Hear from four activists involved with the battle to stop the San Onofre restart as we head into this Friday’s public meeting between the NRC, Southern California Edison and (hopefully squeezing in there, eventually) the public.  Host Libbe HaLevy interviews:
Learn about the politics, the spin, the manipulation… and how Buddhist monks came to be fasting and praying for six days outside San Onofre’s main gate.
  • UN chastises Japan for post-Fukushima incompetence and cruelty to its own citizens;
  • UK activists successfully blockade Hinkley NPP;
  • Illinois provides free potassium iodide to residents within ten miles of only one of its reactors (why not the other five locations?);
  • and South Korea wonders if cracks in their nuke plant control rod tunnels will impact their efforts to export nuclear technology to other countries (ya think?!?).
United Nations special rapporteur and health investigator Anand Grover on Japan’s shameful actions in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster:

Nuclear Hotseat #76: SPECIAL San Onofre Showdown w/NRC, SCE, Monks

12.3-6 #RefurbDarlington Public Hearings

The agenda has been released for the public hearing on the Darlington nuclear site, being held Dec. 3 to 6 at Hope Fellowship Church, 1685 Bloor St., Courtice.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will hearing presentations on Ontario Power Generation’s application to renew the Darlington waste management facility licence and the Darlington nuclear power reactor operating licence until Dec. 31, 2014.

The public hearing will begin on Monday, Dec. 3 at 9 a.m. with comments from OPG and the CNSC staff. The first day of hearing will include presentations from the Municipality of Clarington and several environmental groups.

On Dec. 5 and 6 the hearing will begin at 8:30 a.m. A wide range of presenters — from the Clarington Board of Trade to Greenpeace — will be heard that day at the hearing.

A full schedule of groups and individuals making oral presentations is available on the CNSC web

The public hearing will be broadcast live online at

What you need to know about Darlington's reactors

via Greenpeace Canada

These are the frequently asked questions about Darlington Ontario’s nuclear reactors. If this information leaves you concerned and you want the government to re-consider their plan, sign up below.
Why “Stop Darlington”?
The biggest threat to building a green energy sector in Ontario is the $36 billion earmarked to build two new, and re-build four outdated, risky nuclear reactors at Darlington, 60 kilometers east of Toronto.
Spending billions to rebuild old reactors and to build new ones at Darlington comes with unnecessary accident risks, damages Lake Ontario, and burdens future generations with stockpiles of radioactive waste.
What’s being proposed at Darlington?
Dalton McGuinty’s government has directed Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to build two new reactors and rebuild the four existing reactors at the Darlington site. OPG needs approval from the federal government to proceed with these projects.
How much would it cost to build two new reactors at Darlington?
The costs continue to skyrocket.
In 2007, Ontario’s electricity planning agency, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), said it would cost $ 6 billion to build two new reactors at Darlington.
In 2009, the McGuinty government suspended the purchase of new reactors when the price was $20 billion more than the original estimate - $26 billion
How do Premier McGuinty’s plans for Darlington limit the growth of green energy in Ontario?
The McGuinty government directed government agencies to stop the expansion of renewable energy in 2018. If the Premier reversed that one decision, green energy could continue to grow. Renewable energy could then replace Darlington’s reactors.
Isn’t renewable and clean energy too small to replace Darlington?
No. Renewable energy in Germany already produces more electricity than comes from all of Ontario’s nuclear stations combined. Germany plans to keep expanding its use of renewable energy over the next decade to replace its nuclear reactors, Ontario has limited the growth of renewables to justify keepings its nuclear reactors running.
Switzerland and Belgium also plan to shut down their reactors and replace them a range of clean energy options by 2025.
Would it be cost effective to boost green energy over nuclear?
Yes. But over the past 7 years the McGuinty government has prevented any public reviews of the need for, or alternatives to, nuclear power at Darlington.
In 2006 the McGuinty government exempted its electricity plan from a provincial environmental assessment to prevent a public review of nuclear power versus other alternatives.
The McGuinty government also told a federal government panel reviewing its proposal to build new reactors at Darlington not to consider alternatives to new reactors.
Would it be more cost effective to invest in green energy than new reactors at Darlington?
Yes.  Greenpeace and the Pembina Institute released a report showing that it would be cheaper to invest in a portfolio of green energy options at today’s prices, than spend billions on new reactors.
Also, green energy prices are dropping every year while nuclear costs have only gone up. Ontarians are still paying off this debt every month on their electricity bill.
 What is involved in re-building a reactor and how long is that rebuild expected to last?
Unlike other reactor designs, CANDU reactors typically must be rebuilt to operate beyond 25 years. 
This work – often referred to as re-tubing or refurbishment - involves the removal and replacement of the hundreds of highly radioactive pressure tubes from the reactor core, as well as the replacement of other life-limiting components, such as steam generators, and the upgrading of plants systems to meet modern regulatory requirements.
OPG estimates that it will take ten years to rebuild the four Darlington reactors.
How much will rebuilding the Darlington nuclear station cost?
The estimated cost of rebuilding CANDU reactors has ballooned over the past decade from approximately $800 million per reactor in 2002 to $2.5 billion per reactor today.
In fact in 2009 OPG made a decision against rebuilding the Pickering nuclear station because of the increased cost to extend its life.  
OPG publicly claims that the life-extension of Darlington is cost-effective, but the margin of cost estimates in its proposal are very wide ( from $8 to 14 billion,)and  have not been evaluated by an independent third party.
Greenpeace is calling for OPG’s proposal to rebuild Darlington be publically and independently reviewed.  That review should also examine safer green alternative energy options. not just rebuilding the Darlington reactors,
Can we expect Premier McGuinty’s plan for Darlington to go over budget?
Yes. The existing Darlington reactors were supposed to cost $ 4 billion dollars came in $10 billion over budget.  Ontarians are still paying off this debt every month on their electricity bill.  All other nuclear projects in Canada have gone massively over budget.
Does the Darlington’s nuclear station design meet modern international nuclear safety standards?
No. Darlington’s CANDU reactors share a design flaw with the Chernobyl RBMK reactors. It’s called ‘positive reactivity.’   Most international safety regulators shun reactors designs like that but Canada's nuclear safety regulator has continued to allow positive reactivity because all Canadian reactors in operation have it.
The four Darlington reactors also share one containment system because OPG wanted to save money. Such sharing of safety systems would not be allowed if International Atomic Energy Agency safety guidelines were applied to Darlington.   In the event of an accident at more than one reactor Darlington has a limited ability to contain radiation releases. 
Does Ontario Power Generation believe a Fukushima or Chernobyl-scale accident can happen at Darlington?
Yes. OPG believes nuclear accidents like the Fukushima accident are possible here in Canada.
That’s why OPG has asked for the special legislation – called the Nuclear Liability Act - which protects them from compensating victims in the event of an accident.
But the Canadian nuclear industry says Canadian reactors are safer than other designs and no earthquake or tsunami would happen to trigger an accident like Fukushima.
The Japanese government’s Independent Investigation Commission concluded that the Fukushima disaster was man-made. It was not as a result of an earthquake and the subsequent tsunami.
The Commission also found that the nuclear industry’s significant political influence over Japan’s safety regulator is a barrier to effective safety regulation.   
Reviews of past nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, have concluded that the failure of government institutions to take nuclear risks seriously is what actually caused those accidents.
Should I be concerned about the independence of Canada’s nuclear safety regulator?
Yes.  In 2008, the Harper government fired Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) president Linda Keen.
Keen says she was fired because SNC-Lavalin, the Quebec engineering firm who sells the  CANDU reactors  was upset because she was imposing modern safety standards on the Canadian nuclear industry. This hurt SNC-Lavalin’s profits.
The decision by the Harper government to fire Keen and side with SNC-Lavalin and sent a strong signal to the nuclear industry and our federal regulator: nuclear safety can be ignored or dismissed.
Was Darlington designed to withstand a terrorist attack?
No. The Darlington nuclear station is a pre-September 11th design and is not designed to resist a terrorist attack.
Can the Ontario government protect Ontarians in the event of an accident at Darlington?
No.  Ontario only plans for accidents involving small radiation releases. The only detailed evacuation plans are for a 10 kilometer area around Darlington. 
To compare, with the Fukushima accident, 150,000 people were evacuated in a 20 kilometer area  around that nuclear station.  
At Darlington, a similar sized accident would require evacuating 477,000 people.
Why doesn’t Darlington have cooling towers like American nuclear stations?
When Darlington was originally designed in the 1970s OPG choose to not to build cooling towers to reduce construction costs. However cooling towers not only cool, they also protect fish and aquatic eco-systems.
Does Darlington harm Lake Ontario?
Yes. The Darlington nuclear station kills millions of fish annually and harms aquatic ecosystems because it uses (and pollutes) water from Lake Ontario to cool the station’s four reactors.
Between 2006 and 2008, OPG estimates Darlington killed between 15,000 and 26,020 fish as well as 15,631,833 eggs and 1,201,943 larvae.
What does Greenpeace want the Ontario government to do?
Drop plans to build new reactors at Darlington and instead invest in green energy.
Since the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan many countries have decided the risk of nuclear power is too high and are abandoning nuclear power.
Japan has abandoned plans for new reactors and is investing in green energy instead. Switzerland also dropped plans for new reactors.
Both Germany and Switzerland are phasing out their existing reactors and ramping up their use of safer green energy.
What can I do stop Darlington and support green energy?
Tell your local Member of Provincial Parliament you want affordable green energy and not more dangerous nuclear power at Darlington.
For updates on our campaign and how you can help, sign up here.

What you need to know about Darlington's reactors | Greenpeace Canada

Can we trust Canada’s nuclear safety watchdog?

Blogpost by Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Nuclear Analyst - November 30, 2012 at 13:49

Hearings on the future of the Darlington nuclear station begin on Monday.   The hearings will be controversial.   In a post Fukushima world, Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) proposal to spend billions to rebuild the outdated Darlington reactors is in-of-itself a risky and questionable project.   I think a bigger question will overshadow the hearings: Can Canadians even trust the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s (CNSC) oversight of reactor safety in Canada?  
Sadly, I think the answer to this question is ‘no’ based on the CNSC’s handling of the Darlington review so far.
My bet is next week’s hearings will show that the Ontario’s McGuinty government needs to step up and assume its responsibility to protect Ontarians from Darlington’s environmental and financial risks.    
The CNSC has stubbornly limited the public’s ability to understand and comment on OPG’s plan to keep the Darlington nuclear station running until 2055.  In particular, it has refused to acknowledge and address lessons from the Fukushima disaster in the environmental review to be discussed next week.
Civil society groups have tried to make constructive input to the Darlington review, but have been dismissed if such criticisms challenged the CNSC’s pre-Fukushima approach to regulating reactors.
With Fukushima we’re seeing a major nuclear accident about once a decade somewhere in the world.   This reality contradicts everything the CNSC has been telling Canadians about reactor risks. 
The CNSC, however, just dismissed the groups’ request.  Despite Fukushima, the CNSC seems committed to business-as-usual.
In August of 2011, Greenpeace asked the CNSC to apply some of the recommendations of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) that reviewed building new reactors at Darlington just after the Fukushima disaster started.   These JRP recommendations related to some lessons that should be learned from Fukushima, but challenged the CNSC’s traditional approach to regulation.
Specifically, the JRP said we need to examine whether current emergency plans can cope with accidental radiation releases from all of the Darlington reactors.   We currently only have emergency plans for an accident at a single reactor.
The CNSC stubbornly refused to apply the JRP recommendations.   This I find shocking: the CNSC refused to even acknowledge and apply the recommendations from a government appointed body.
Greenpeace also raised concerns and evidence again in our comments on the draft environmental assessment report.    Dismissed again.
What specifically is the CNSC trying to avoid?
Acknowledging that accidental large radiation releases are happening on a regular basis internationally would require the CNSC to consider such events in its environmental review of Darlington’s continued operation.
That would mean that public would have access to information on the full environmental, social and risks of continuing to operate Darlington.
It would also allow us to discuss whether Ontario’s emergency plans could adequately protect Canadians in the event of an accident at Darlington.   
To the average person living in Darlington’s shadow, reviewing the adequacy of nuclear emergency plans and the potential environmental effects of such an event would seem reasonable before we commit billions to rebuilding the station.
To the Canadian nuclear industry, however, such a review would is viewed as a public relations nightmare.  To them, such public scrutiny should be avoided at all costs.  Sadly the CNSC seems more than willing to help Canadian nuclear operators with their public relations.  
What might be driving all this?
Keen has since said she was fired because she was tried to impose modern safety standards on Canadian nuclear operators.
I’ve also seen this first hand in how the CNSC has handled the Darlington safety review.
Last week, the CNSC admitted that it had also dismissed a request by Emergency Management Ontario to consider major reactor accidents at Darlington to validate Ontario’s nuclear emergency plans.
The CNSC even said ‘no’ to the government of Ontario.   Now that’s stubborn.
Clearly the world has changed since Fukushima, but the CNSC hasn’t.
If Canadians can’t trust the federal safety watchdog, it’s probably time the Ontario government take responsibility for protecting Ontarians.
I think next week’s hearings will shows that it’s time for McGuinty government to stop passing off the safety of Ontarians to the Harper government.
Other countries have decided that nuclear reactors are too risky post Fukushima and are investing heavily in renewables.
The Ontario government should start protecting Ontarians by examining alternatives to Darlington. 
Believe it or not, there’s been no public review of whether we even need Darlngton.  It’s time we examine our options.

Can we trust Canada’s nuclear safety watchdog? | Greenpeace Canada

see also: