Explore alternatives before going nuclear

Adopt an eco-friendly vision to education, construction, life itself

By CHRIS BROWNE
Special to the WCR
Sherwood Park

Nuclear energy is too dangerous and should not be approved for use in Alberta. Perhaps we forgot the serious health issues that the victims of the Chernobyl accident suffered. The high incidence of thyroid cancer to nearby residents comes to mind.

The serious health problems in babies of mothers that were pregnant should not be forgotten.

I had the opportunity to visit Germany. In the southern area, milk from local farms and lettuce from the fields were not considered suitable for human consumption. Due to wind patterns, the area had been contaminated with Chernobyl's nuclear fallout. The milk from cows that grazed on contaminated grass was considered unsafe, as were the field crops from that area.

Rampant dangers

Why would anyone consider nuclear energy for northern Alberta? A small error in operations could cause long-term, serious health problems for residents in surrounding areas. Fertile farmland will become barren and useless. Crops will not be edible. We risk endangering the lives of Albertans and contaminating our food supply.

It is also important to note that most citizens would not want a nuclear reactor or nuclear disposal plant in their neighbourhood. What makes anyone think that the friendly people in Peace River want these undesirable industries in their backyards? Would you like nuclear waste transported through your community en route to a disposal site?

Perhaps a local disposal site will be constructed that accepts dangerous nuclear wastes from other locations. How would you feel about this in your community? If we would not accept the nuclear industry in our own community, we should not expect fellow Albertans to welcome this industry in theirs.

Solutions must start at the grassroots level. Instead of embracing nuclear energy, our government could consider incentives for Albertans to discover cleaner, more efficient ways to use our existing resources and reduce emissions.

An extra year's salary for a teacher, professor or scientist or free tuition and books for students who make valuable contributions are a few suggestions.

Secondary schools could offer courses in environmental stewardship, eco-friendly living and energy-efficient construction. Builders of energy-efficient housing and landscapers who incorporate techniques that conserve resources should receive recognition and tax incentives.

Plant trees

Another "made in Alberta" solution could have communities competing to become more eco-friendly. Recognition and tax benefits could be awarded to the community that contributes the most every year. More tree planting, car-free areas and bike lanes are also options.

To become environmentally friendly, we have options other than nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is a short-term solution that will cause long-term problems for Alberta's environment. If we are seriously concerned about our environment, we would not consider a form of energy that has the potential of killing citizens, contaminating the environment, poisoning the food supply and creating a byproduct that is so dangerous it must be buried for thousands of years.

Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 -- Western Catholic Reporter