Cree First Nation marchers against uranium mining arrived in Montreal on December 15, 2014 after an 850 trek south to deliver their message at environmental hearings.
Photo Credit: CBC / Jay Turnbull

Uranium mining moratorium challenged by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission


Uranium mining is a contentious issue in Quebec. Passionate and consistent objections from different communities forced the province to impose a temporary moratorium in 2013. Now the province is considering whether to make the ban permanent.


Gordon Edwards, of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, supports a permanent ban, and he’s concerned about statments made by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in January, minimizing the effects of uranium mining.

Last July, following a year of public hearings on uranium mining, a report was released, recommending the government not proceed with mining the substance.

“The age of nuclear waste is just beginning”

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, however, objected to the conclusion, questioning the scientific rigour. The new provincial government established an inter-departmental committee to investigate the conflicting views and interests, and had a private meeting with the CNSC in January.

Gordon Edwards of the CCNR objects to several assertions in that presentation that he says, contradict the safety commission’s own findings. There are three problem areas of misinformation according to Edwards.

The first, was the assertion by Dr. Patsy Thompson, that uranium miners in Ontario had no higher rate of lung cancer than the general population. Gordon Edwards say the regulators own study found a 34 per cent increased mortality rate of lung cancer in the miners and, that there are 30 per cent more incidents of lung cancer, totalling about 600 extra cases of lung cancer, over what’s expected in the general public.

Secondly, the committee heard that radionuclides, the radioactive materials released during uranium mining and processing, are not toxic. Quite the opposite says Gordon Edwards. These substances, radium, radon and polonium are powerfully toxic.

A huge omission according to Edwards, was not addressing the tailings challenges. The radio-active material left over remains 85 per cent radioactive for thousands of years. More mining and processing leaves societies with the challenge of what to do with these toxic piles. Ontario is currently dealing with protests from neighbouring communities in the United States over its plan to bury this material near Lake Eire.

It remains to be seen what the Quebec committee will decide, but the fifth anniversary of the Fukishima meltdown is fast approaching, and many citizens will be reminded of the terrifying consequences that accompany the benefits of nuclear power.

Gordon Edwards says one of the problems identified in the aftermath of Japan’s tragedy, was that “the regulator was siding too much with the industry”. He says there is cause for similar concern here in Canada, particularly following the presentation in Quebec City.

“The regulator may be showing bias and lack of objectivity in not reporting the facts objectively about what are the dangers and what are the benefits but they just simply seem to stick with the benefits and not even mention the problems, the safety problems.” he says.

Categories: Economy, Environment, Health, Indigenous, International, Internet, Science and Technology, Politics, Society

Do you want to report an error or a typo? Click here!

@*@ Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

Note: By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that Radio Canada International has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Radio Canada International does not endorse any of the views posted. Your comments will be pre-moderated and published if they meet netiquette guidelines.

Netiquette »

When you express your personal opinion in an online forum, you must be as courteous as if you were speaking with someone face-to-face. Insults and personal attacks will not be tolerated. To disagree with an opinion, an idea or an event is one thing, but to show disrespect for other people is quite another. Great minds don’t always think alike—and that’s precisely what makes online dialogue so interesting and valuable.

Netiquette is the set of rules of conduct governing how you should behave when communicating via the Internet. Before you post a message to a blog or forum, it’s important to read and understand these rules. Otherwise, you may be banned from posting.

  1.’s online forums are not anonymous. Users must register, and give their full name and place of residence, which are displayed alongside each of their comments. reserves the right not to publish comments if there is any doubt as to the identity of their author.
  2. Assuming the identity of another person with intent to mislead or cause harm is a serious infraction that may result in the offender being banned.
  3.’s online forums are open to everyone, without regard to age, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
  4. Comments that are defamatory, hateful, racist, xenophobic, sexist, or that disparage an ethnic origin, religious affiliation or age group will not be published.
  5. In online speak, writing in ALL CAPS is considered yelling, and may be interpreted as aggressive behaviour, which is unpleasant for the people reading. Any message containing one or more words in all caps (except for initialisms and acronyms) will be rejected, as will any message containing one or more words in bold, italic or underlined characters.
  6. Use of vulgar, obscene or objectionable language is prohibited. Forums are public places and your comments could offend some users. People who use inappropriate language will be banned.
  7. Mutual respect is essential among users. Insulting, threatening or harassing another user is prohibited. You can express your disagreement with an idea without attacking anyone.
  8. Exchanging arguments and opposing views is a key component of healthy debate, but it should not turn into a dialogue or private discussion between two users who address each other without regard for the other participants. Messages of this type will not be posted.
  9. Radio Canada International publishes contents in five languages. The language used in the forums has to be the same as the contents we publish. The usage of other languages, with the exception of some words, is forbidden. Messages that are off-topic will not be published.
  10. Making repetitive posts disrupts the flow of discussions and will not be tolerated.
  11. Adding images or any other type of file to comments is forbidden. Including hyperlinks to other websites is allowed, as long as they comply with netiquette. Radio Canada International  is in no way responsible for the content of such sites, however.
  12. Copying and pasting text written by someone else, even if you credit the author, is unacceptable if that text makes up the majority of your comment.
  13. Posting any type of advertising or call to action, in any form, to Radio Canada International  forums is prohibited.
  14. All comments and other types of content are moderated before publication. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to refuse any comment for publication.
  15. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to close a forum at any time, without notice.
  16. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to amend this code of conduct (netiquette) at any time, without notice.
  17. By participating in its online forums, you allow Radio Canada International to publish your comments on the web for an indefinite time. This also implies that these messages will be indexed by Internet search engines.
  18. Radio Canada International has no obligation to remove your messages from the web if one day you request it. We invite you to carefully consider your comments and the consequences of their posting.


One comment on “Uranium mining moratorium challenged by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
  1. Avatar Jon Lafontaine says:

    A few comments.

    1) M. Edwards’ Coalition is a one man show with no resources, experience, authority, or acknowledged scientific credentials. M. Edwards may be an excellent high-school-level math teacher, and I do not doubt his sincerity in his anti-developement activist efforts.

    2) M. Edwards’ claims are at best cherry picked, at worst, fraudulent.

    3) Tailings for any mine will remain tailings for hundreds of millions of years. Tailings with radioactivity will have the same level of radioactivity of the rock mined today, minus 15 percent. All tailings represent environmental challenges. ONLY uranium tailings are managed with considerations until the next ice-age by storing them under current surface level in ponds dissociated from the natural watersheds (atrificial pits in which surface waters did not naturally flow into or out of.

    4) The regulator shows no bias. The regulator is defending it’s method of determining safe practices of which companies must obide. M. Edwards is attacking the regulator, it has a right to defent itself and its practices and its establish, world-leading regulations.

    5) ONLY in nuclear energy cycles is there true cradle to grave foresight and management. No hydrodam, no solar cell, no wind farm, no diesel or coal fire stations account for the management of their own waste, preferring to leave it to further generations to determine what to do with materials and impacts at the end of life cycle.

    6) In Fukushima, 2 people are known to have been exposed to enough radiation to generate mild industrial burns on the outside of their legs; no deaths recorded and no exposure to harmful levels of radiactivity could be detected.

    Best regards,

    Jon Lafontaine