NUCLEAR IS OBSOLETE......ADVANCED WIND AND SOLAR AND ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL ARE THE FUTURE

In an article in the Deseret News on February 1, 2026, Dr. Brian Moench, President of the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment stated:  "There is no safe level of radiation exposure.  Any exposure to to radiation increases the risk of damage to key biologic infrastructure - the capability of causing genetic mutations, cancer, leukemia, birth defects, impaired brain development and reproduction, cardiovascular and immune system disorders."   He added: "Water vapor vented from the plant and the cooling water discharged to nearby water bodies contaminate air, water, soil and the food chain."

The proposed new Wesleyville nuclear generating station is 10 kilometres from the town of Port Hope and situated on Lake Ontario.  The Great Lakes contain 21% of the world's surface fresh water and the Province of Ontario has the great good fortune of being on four of these.  Lake Ontario is the source of drinking water for 9 million people.  More nuclear reactors will only increase the health damaging pollution into the air and water that is emitted during the regular operation of nuclear reactors.

Mark Z Jacobson is a professor of Engineering, Civil Technology and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University.  His work has shown that we can move into the future without fossil fuels or nuclear focusing on only renewable zero emission sources.  One of his books is called:  "No Miracles Needed: How Today's Technology Can Save Our Climate and Clean Our Air." He has shown how many countries can achieve this.  His blueprint for Canada is a transition to 100% clean, renewable wind, water and solar energy by 2050. Other organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation support this too.  The renewable energy sector is growing by leaps and bounds around the world.  I was happy to discover this.

So I was appalled when I learned that the Ontario Conservative government planned a massive expansion of nuclear including this huge nuclear station at Wesleyville supported by expensive fossil gas plants.  Fossil gas is 70 to 90% methane.  Methane is an eighty times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20 year period.  Apparently the climate crisis is not a concern to this Ontario government.

Cost of living is on the minds of many citizens today and nuclear is a very expensive way to produce energy.  Electricity prices in Ontario have already increased recently and the public can expect more shocks like this with more nuclear.  Conservation, wind, water and solar are much cheaper and faster to implement.  I don't how such expensive electricity rates will draw businesses to Ontario.

M V Ramana is a physicist, nuclear expert and Professor at the University of British Columbia.  The  title of his book:  "Nuclear is not the Solution:  The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change" says it all.  He points out that nuclear will slow our response to climate change and increase the risk of weapons proliferation and catastrophe.  The jacket cover of Professor Ramana's book notes:  "Even beyond the horrific implications of meltdown and the intractable problem of waste disposal, nuclear is not practicable on such a large scale.  Any appraisal of future technology depends on two important parameters: cost and time.  Nuclear fails on both accounts.  It is more costly than its renewable competitors wind and solar.  And, importantly given the need for a rapid transformation, it is slow."

An added comment here is that "Nuclear is Not the Solution" also unmasks the powerful groups and vested interests in the maintenance of the status quo, currently working hard to greenwash a spectacularly dirty industry."

Another concern about nuclear energy is that every nuclear station and every nuclear waste storage site is a potential target for attack. Since the federal government plans to spend billions on defense, why would we create more targets for a potential enemy.  You don't need a nuclear bomb to cause a nuclear accident in this case.  If a wind farm or solar array were targeted, it wouldn't have the same impact.  They could be rebuilt fairly quickly and ionizing radiation would not be dispersed far and wide.  I read that Russian President Putin said he considers nuclear stations and nuclear waste storage facilities appropriate targets. 

And the more nuclear reactors there are, the more chance of nuclear accidents.  The names of Three Mile Island, Chornobyl and Fukushima always strike fear in me.  Another benefit of renewables like wind and solar is that they do not produce dangerous radioactive waste. In other words,  you don't need to spend 26 billion dollars  and have 2 to 3 transport trucks per day for 50 years moving dangerous radioactive waste thousands of kilometers around the province on our roadways to try and bury it and hope it doesn't leak out and get into the groundwater as happened in Germany.

There are so many reasons that more nuclear is not a good choice.  I request that the safer, less dangerous renewable options replace it.