1

1

A 2008-2010 Water/Energy Connections Project Quarterly Newsletter published by:The NCWC Education Fund & The National Council of Women of Canada with funding from:

The Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation

THE CONSERVER

H2O

June/July/August 2009 SUMMER EDITION

Dear National Council of Women of Canada and NCWC Education Fund Members and Supporters,It’s just past the half way mark in our Water/Energy Connections Project, and we have certainly made many very disturbing “connections” between water and energy. A most startling and worrisome one for all Canadians, particularly westerners in Alberta and Saskatchewan, was revealed by our guest speaker Andrew Nikiforuk at our June 6th AGM in Prince Albert Saskatchewan. A well known environmental advocate and author and winner of the 2009 City of Calgary W.O. Mitchell award for his book Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of the Continent, Mr. Nikiforuk drew a crowd of NCWC members and several en-vironmental activists from around this northern Saskatchewan district - and a standing ovation- for his stirring description of the havoc the tar sands are wreaking on the waterways, boreal forests, wildlife and the health, safety, and way of life of affected communities. We’ve posted Andrew Nikiforuk’s AGM power point remarks on our web site, along with our NCWC brief to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development regard-ing the Oil (Tar) Sands’ impact on water. The latter highlighted our NCWC Emerging issues Resolution which asked the Government of Canada to “cease supporting the irresponsible production of oil from the tar sands of Canada...”. In the months ahead we

will keep you informed of further developments in this very troublesome story.This edition of the CONSERVER features another urgent water issue-that of the many threats to our Canadian waterways. These are vividly described by our featured writers, Great Lakes expert John Jackson, in his editorial “The (1909) Boundary Waters Treaty: can it adequately address environ-mental needs”? and NCWCEF researcher Dr. John Bacher, in his review of Margaret Wooster’s new book “Living Waters” and his personal account of an 8 day walk to help stop a planned dump on top of the Alliston aquifer, which is considered the source of the “purest water in the world.”On a more, practical note, I am asking members to continue to broaden our circulation of the Water/Energy Connections survey. I have over 200 sur-veys in hand, but would like to bring that number to 300. Please endeavor to hand out surveys at your early Fall meetings and urge your Local and Pro-vincial Council of Women affiliates to take a bundle to distribute to (and collect from - for mail back to me) their members. Your answers to our questions and your comments will form the heart of our rec-ommendations to the Government next Spring. You can also fill out the survey on line at www.ncwc.caEnjoy this issue, which is also on our NCWC web site, and circulate to others. Comments are most welcome at gracia.janes@bellnet.caGracia Janes, Project Co-Ordinator

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

H2O

Dec. 2009/Jan./Feb. 2010 WINTER EDITION

LETTER FROM THE EDITORDear National Council of Women of Canada and NCWC Education Fund Members and Supporters,

This Winter edition of the CONSERVER is the second last in a series of eight newsletters, funded by the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation regarding Water/Energy Connections and in it we cover various aspects of nuclear power and its impacts on the environment and our health and safety. The “Quotables” section features excerpts from a presentation by Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, Lecturer at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) and film advisor for the NFB (e.g. Toxic Trespass.) at our 2010 NCWC Education Fund AGM in Toronto.

We also quote Gordon Edwards, who, since he presented to NCWC Education Fund at our Ottawa launch of this project in May 2008, has been criss-crossing Canada to help Canadians fight the ever growing plethora of nuclear projects -for example, Bruce Power’s interest in developing nuclear power in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and most recently, to ship 16 radioactive steam generators from the refurbishment of its nuclear reactors on Lake Huron through the Great Lakes, the Welland Canal and St. Lawrence Seaway to Sweden for recycling. (see extracts from the National Council of Women of Canada’s letter to the Jim Prentice, (then Federal Minister of Environment.)

This Summer we sent out the final results of our Water/Energy Use Survey and a press release, both of which are on our National Council of Women web site at www.ncwc.ca

Our thanks to those of you from 80 communities in 10 provinces who took the time to tell us about your water and energy habits, opinions of government policies and programs, and the many varied ways you save

water and energy, as well as the barriers you face. The survey was a small but in-depth one, where we heard the voices and views of 326 Canadians from St. Johns Newfoundland to Mission British Columbia.

Your survey answers and views will “help NCWC and its affiliates to develop new policies and more effectively use NCWC and Provincial Council of Women water and energy policies when commenting to all levels of government on the need for legislation, plans and actions to protect Canada’s precious water resources.”

The survey answers provided a caution though. As the press release so clearly stated, “this Canada-wide Water and Energy Conservation Survey shows strong public support for water protection policies, but where support meets cost-or the public’s reluctance to reused water - action is often stalled.”

Please take time to read the survey report on our web site and see what you think we need to do, as a group or as individuals, to carry through on our ideals for water protection in Canada.

Gracia Janes, Project Co-Ordinator and President NCWC Education Fund

InsIde ThIs IssueQuotables ........................................ 2-5Letter from the National President .... 6How To Help NCWC .......................... 7From The Pen Of ................................ 8

2

Dorothy Goldin-Rosenberg MES, PhD: The Health Impacts of Ionizing Radiation, Namely Tritium, Primarily on Women, the Developing Fetus and Young Girls’ Breasts During Puberty: Urgent Action Required-adapted for a presentation to the NCWC Education Fund AGM on May 29th 2010 (from a deputation to the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council (ODWAC) re Tritium in Drinking Water 2008)

Introduction: the Political Factor and a Sense of Urgency

While many members of women’s organizations are well informed about nuclear power/weapons issues, they may not be familiar with the radioactive emissions at each stage of the nuclear fuel chain. Despite much denial regarding the health impacts of ionizing radiation by the nuclear industry and supportive governments, it is most important to make them known. Public education about health is imperative as more people and policy makers are poorly informed, although there is much information available (see www.iicph.org; www.ccnr.org and ‘Manipulating Public Health Research :the Nuclear and Radiation Establishments, Rudy Nussbaum PhD, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 2007, 13:328-330.)

Nuclear issues are related to vested corporate interests and are often promoted by former politicians e.g. Murray Elston, the former Minister of Health for Ontario in the Government of David Peterson, is now the head of the Canadian Nuclear Association (remember those CNA TV ads promoting nuclear energy as safe, clean and cheap, which have now been determined inaccurate and have been taken off the air, as a result of a complaint ).

The discussion of the dangers of nuclear is more essential than ever at this time as the government of Ontario’s energy agenda includes 2 new reactors at its Darlington site on Lake Ontario, confirmed in September 2010, {CNSC Hearing starts March /11} ; Bruce Power is promoting new nuclear at its site

on Lake Huron, as well as a medium and low level non-fuel waste dump site there; the nuclear Waste Management Organization is actively searching for a “willing community” to host its “high level” nuclear waste site - promoting it as a job creator. ; Point Lepreau in New Brunswick and Gentilly in Quebec are being refurbished and the Alberta and Saskatchewan governments are investigating nuclear’s potential-fortunately, so far, not so successfully.

Tritium: the Search for a Healthier Standard

Tritium is a known radioactive carcinogen, mutagen and teretogen (crosses the placental barrier to cause harm.) A radioactive isotope of hydrogen, it combines with oxygen to form radioactive water which binds easily with organic molecules including DNA. The focus of health impacts of ionizing radiation, namely tritium, primarily on women, the developing fetus and young girls’ breasts in puberty has been a missing link in the general discourse of the health impacts of ionizing radiation (with the exception of Rosalie Bertell, Alice Stewart and Alexandra McKee Bennett, although others such as Gordon Edwards and Dr. Ian Fairlee have published excellent work on Tritium in general.)

While this discussion is largely related to tritium in the drinking water of the Greater Toronto Area from the Pickering and Darlington nuclear reactors, the same analysis and recommendations apply to the Chalk River reactor which has had major spills and accidents of tritium into the drinking water of millions of people whose source is the Ottawa River.

The Ontario Drinking Water Advisory council (ODWAC) hearings took place in March 2008, in Toronto. My deputation was on behalf of the Women’s Healthy Environment Network (WHEN) which promotes a clean safe environment and the use of the precautionary principle with regards to contaminants causing harm to our health and the eco systems on which we depend. WHEN believes that individuals can make a difference when they ‘Take Action for Prevention’ in their homes and communities, but that there is also an important role for governments in protecting human health and the environment.

Rationale

As it is now known that there is no safe dose of radiation and when the smallest dose can cause cancer and other health effects (Biological Effects of Ionizing Rdiation V11 BEIR V11 National Academy of Sciences )* Ontario should strive to eliminate risks

QUOTABLES

3

to the environment and human health of its citizens.

Our presentation for ODWAC elaborated on these points with reference to other reports and studies highlighting the need for protect in particular women, the developing fetus, growing children and young girls in puberty, from exposure to any dose ideally.

We noted that along with the problem of solid nuclear wastes is the question of regular emissions of radioisotopes from nuclear power plants into air and water. Human beings receive exposures to organically bound tritium through ingestion of plants and animals exposed in an effluent ‘pathway’, in addition to direct uptake through inhalation, absorption and from drinking contaminated water. The CANDU reactor emits tritium as well as Carbon 14 and other radioisotopes.

BEIR V11 informed our position that there is no safe dose of radiation. Even exposures to background radiation cause some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risk. The report also found that the risk was greater to women and children -the younger the children the greater the risk. Especially sensitive to the effects of tritium are rapidly growing cells such as fetal tissue and young girls’ developing breasts, genetic materials and blood forming organs. Tritium can affect protein precursors that will make up the chromosomal strands in the DNA, which can damage the DNA, creating a mutational effect. The results of these processes can cause cancers, miscarriages, birth defects sterility, hypothyroidism etc., not only in those directly affected but also in their offspring, and theirs. A connection to heart disease, stroke and possible genetic damage was also discussed.

The Developing Fetus

A significant pathway for human harm from elevated tritium levels is via female human infants. As Dr. Edwin Radford of the University of Pittsburgh stated to the Parliamentary Select committee of Ontario Hydro (1980) “a female infant is born with all the eggs and ova she will ever produce as a mature woman. Those ova are formed during a relatively short period of time in utero. If the “building materials” in utero available during that short time are defective-specifically if available hydrogen is tritiated, an inordinately high percentage of her ova will incorporate the defective material. Since tritium has a radioactive half life of 23 years, the majority of that would have already undergone decay by the time she would enter her reproductive years. That radioactive decay would disproportionately disrupt her genetic material in her

ova, and her offspring, in two ways: by irradiating the surrounding genetic material with a very well-placed beta particle and by converting a meaningful “Tritium of hydrogen atom e.g. in a crucial gene in the DNA code into a nonsensical helium atom, thereby causing genetic damage.”

As well, we know there are and always will be pregnant women, developing children and young girls, which must be taken into account. It used to be thought that “only the dose made the poison”, however it is now known that the timing of the exposures can be just as, or more, important than the dose. (Steingraber 2001) It is now well understood in the discourse of children’s health and the environment that the smallest amounts of radiation and /or chemicals at the time of these “windows of vulnerability” can have major impacts on their present and future health for this reason. In terms of risk assessment (basically permission to pollute a certain amount) does it not call into question standards of any “acceptable levels of radiation exposures during these critical windows of rapid cellular growth when there is such vulnerability to abhorrent growth?”

For these and other reasons the International Joint Commission (IJC) 7th Biennial Report on the Great Lakes (1994) recommended that radionuclides with a half life of greater than 6 months be included in the list of persistent toxic substances, and that governments work towards virtual elimination of these substances under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and that strategies for virtual elimination of these pollutants from waste streams be implemented .(Recommendation 12 to Federal, State and Provincial Governments . 7th Biennial Report Feb. 1994) ....

......Appendix -Recently Enunciated Impacts on Women’s Health:

As presented, January, 2008 at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Tritium workshop in Ottawa, the understanding of the dosage of tritium to women is now estimated by Dr. Richard B Richardson (Chalk River, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited {AECL}, International Commission on Radiological Protection {IRCP}), to be 45% higher than the dose to the “Standard Man”. (The basis of many health protections standards is an adult Caucasian male, called “Standard” or “Reference Man”.

Dr. Richardson’s research illustrates that the dose co efficient for women is under calculated, underscoring that Canadian women are not protected by the current regulation . Nor will they in the ~new gender~ models the ICRP has recently agreed upon. At the workshop,

4

Alexandra McKee-Bennett, BA RN MSN RM, pointed out that there is now a clear understanding from the excellent computer models Dr. Richardson has created, which proves for all radionuclide intakes, female doses coefficients, individual and collective for acute H2O, intake is 21% higher than males, due to 1BQ/L being more concentrated in female’s smaller mass ....

ICRP was presented with this information and as noted, Dr. Richardson is an ICRP committee member, but it may not change their position to reflect the Canadian reality. Dr. Richardson was concerned with the exposures to the number of women now working at AECL and the CNSC. Alexandra Bennett feels then, it behooves the CNSC to decide if the Canadian public, whose health they are mandated by law to protect, will now use the Canadian models developed by Dr. Richardson to protect all Canadians. She observed that there was support by several scientists for this position.......

*WHEN Recommendations to the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Committee.

Editors note: In its 2009 report ODWAC recommended that releases of tritium into water be reduced from the allowable 7000 becquerels per litre to 20 becquerels per litre.

** A complete record of an excellent presentation to ODWAC by Alexandra McKee Bennett, (Our NCWC Education Fund 2010 AGM Dinner speaker) is at:http://www.odwac.gov.on.ca/standards_review/tritium/written_submissions /Alexandra_Bennett_Precautionary_principle_Canada_l.pdf

Background on Tritium : Gordon Edwards PhD President Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility February 4th, 2010. (Panelist at the NCW Education Fund AGM 2008.)

“Tritium is radioactive hydrogen. It is a weakly radioactive material which is harmless outside the body, because it gives off non-penetrating, low energy beta radiation. Inside the body however, scientific studies have repeatedly shown that the beta radiation from tritium is at least 2 or 3 times more biologically damaging than more penetrating types of radiation such as x-rays and gamma-rays.

Moreover, tritium combines with oxygen to form radioactive water molecules which cannot be filtered out from ordinary non-radioactive water molecules. Municipal water treatment plants are unable to remove tritium from drinking water.

When these tritium-contaminated water molecules evaporate, the water vapour in the air becomes radioactive. When inhaled into the lungs, tritium is all absorbed into the body. At the same time, tritium -contaminated water molecules are absorbed directly through the skin in amounts comparable to those absorbed by breathing.

Unlike most radioactive substances, tritium goes to every single organ in the body. It also freely exchanges with non-radioactive hydrogen atoms in the body’s organic molecules, including the DNA molecules, so that those organic molecules become radioactive; this is called “organically-bound tritium.”

Tritium also enters into all living things, and thus enters the food chain.

The permissible level for tritium in drinking water is not a safe level. It is simply an arbitrary cut-off point for the convenience of the nuclear industry., because all nuclear plants give off large amounts of tritium into the environment all the time.

The international unit of radioactivity is the “becquerel”. One bequerel indicates that there is one radioactive disintegration occurring every second. .... the permissible level of tritium in drinking water used to be 40,000 becquerels per liter Bq/L..... Then in 1993, an independent scientific body called ACES (Ontario Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards) published a report saying that if tritium were controlled at the same level as other toxic materials are controlled, the permissible level for tritium in drinking water should be reduced to 20 becquerels per liter.

Last year the tritium standard was once again reviewed by an independent scientific body called ODWAC (Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Committee.) Once again, they said that the permissible level should be 20 becquerels per liter. Not that that level is safe, but that it is more or less equivalent to the standards we use for other nasty things like lead, mercury or PVCs that find their way into our drinking water. “

Excerpts from a Provincial Council of Women of Ontario Brief to the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council March 27th 2008 - Gracia Janes PCWO Environmental Consultant - presented by Carol Canzona, Environment Convener, Toronto and Area Council of Women

http://.odwac.gov.on.ca/standards_review/tritium/written_submissions/Gracia_Janes_Provincial_Council_of_Women_of_Ontario.pdf

5

In determining that the current provincial standard for tritium is not acceptable and that a much stronger standard should be put in place, PCWO speaks to several issues such as:

* PCWO and National Council of Women of Canada policy re nuclear standards

* the use of the ‘precautionary Principle’ in developing standards

* growing public concerns re the number and quantity of tritium releases into water and their impact on public health

* the very lengthy time it has taken to get to this consultation and the government’s lack of action to date on the 1994 ACES precautionary recommendations, which we view to be as a result of the nuclear lobby and a lack of leadership from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and Health Canada

* recommendations from a growing scientific body, regarding the need for more extensive studies and much stronger standards as found elsewhere e.g. the USA (and California), which reflect, for instance, the combined effect of water, air and food, and the particular effects of tritium e.g. the tritium dosage is 45% higher for women than men

* the added urgency for this Council to recommend immediate precautionary action in light of the possible life extensions of aging nuclear plants and the Ontario government’s planned new-build.....”

... “NCWC Policy in 1997, asked the Federal Government to bring Canadian radiation exposure standards into conformity with those adopted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1990) while encouraging the Commission to improve these standards even further to reflect gender and age differences of women and children”...

“In a critique of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s Regulatory Policy P-290, Managing Radioactive Waste, NCWC cautioned the CNSC, that “Such standards should reflect gender -based analysis. In developing and promoting these standards, the Commission should encourage the International Commission on Radioactive Protection (ICRP) to consult with regulatory bodies such as the

US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and the newly formed European Committee for Radiation Risk (EECR). Should the Commission not move in this direction we urge the Commission to find its own way towards stronger standards and promote them internationally”

..... “The Precautionary Principle requires that those who protect the public good consider “when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or to the environment, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically” In this case it is an important consideration for everyone’s good, particularly women, fetuses, children, teens and the frail and elderly, those with compromised immune systems, workers and persons living in close proximity to nuclear plants.

To date we can think of at least three issues of public concerns where after years of research, stone-walling by the industry re costs and science, court cases and increasing public concerns, that federal and provincial governments, citing the ‘precautionary principle’, finally acted. These are:

* municipal and provincial smoking bans * federal and provincial investments and actions to

clean up the Great Lakes* over 143 municipal by-laws and a Quebec ban,

on cosmetic pesticide use followed recently by a promised Ontario ban ....

Gracia Janes, Project Co-ordinator

6

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN OF CANADA (Established 1893)

The Honourable Jim PrenticeMinister of EnvironmentHouse of commonsOttawa, Ontario

Re: Opposition to the Bruce Power Application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for Permission to Ship 16 Radioactive Steam Generators from its Nuclear Reactors on Lake Huron to Sweden- and a Request for an Environmental Assessment of Same

Dear Minister Prentice,

The National Council of Women of Canada (NCWC) is writing this letter to you regarding a very important issue for Canadians, particularly those living in towns and cities along the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway , but also Americans who live in this same area, and the millions who rely on the Great Lakes for their water supply. That is, the application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) by Bruce Power to ship 16 very large deteriorating, radioactive steam generators from its nuclear reactors at its Lake Huron site of operations, through the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River and by ocean to Sweden, for recycling and sale into an unrestricted market.

While several of NCWC’s affiliated member groups based in the Great Lakes /St. Lawrence Seaway Area e.g. Provincial Councils of Quebec and Ontario and Local Councils in Quebec and Ontario, may well be heavily impacted should an accident happen as the radioactive materials are transported, the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario has taken the lead on this issue as the bulk of the shipping in Canada will be through its many towns and cities along the route and bordering Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario.

NCWC’s support of the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario’s strong opposition to this very dangerous proposal, is based on our long standing policies supporting a phase-out nuclear power and the use of the ‘precautionary principle’ when assessing projects that may well put human health and safety and the environment at risk.

We note that NCWC and PCWO are not alone in objecting to Bruce Power’s plan, as over 80 groups and individuals have sent objections to the CNSC , or presented their views at its September 28 and 29th hearing, and letters of concern have been sent to the CNSC and yourself as Minister of environment by elected officials of many Towns and Cities along the proposed route, and a group of 7 Great Lakes US Senators.

Many Canadian Mayors have been very concerned with the threat of accident along the route, particularly the threat to drinking water supplies for millions of people, and it is quite shocking to us that Bruce Power’s CEO has admitted that his company has no emergency plan in the event of a ship sinking. Recent media reports also indicate that there is as yet no plan for dealing with winter weather conditions on the roads the trucks carrying the radioactive materials are to travel.

For their part, the American Senators are seeking assurances regarding such issues as the CNSC standard of review, the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) limits and standards for total radioactivity per shipment and the need for independent peer review of the information. These latter two points are key issues for National Council of Women of Canada and were called for in the submission of the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario, which noted Canada’s outdated standards and that all relevant information came from the proponent Bruce Power, as verified by CNSC Staff.

These concerns are certainly justified, as it has been brought to our attention by independent scientist Dr. Gordon Edwards, that on September 27th, the CNSC Staff reported in their “additional filings” that

7

the radioactive inventory of the steam generators had been underestimated by about 50% and the external gamma dose rate had also been underestimated by a significant amount. It is our understanding also, that the original staff data shows that the total amount of radioactivity exceeds the International IAEA Standard by 50 times for inland waters and 6 times for open oceans. The new data shows that the radioactivity would exceed these standards by 75 and 9 times respectively. Given this new data and the huge concern by so many communities around the Great Lakes , it is shocking to think that the Bruce proposal was going to be approved by a single CNSC staff person before huge public pressure resulted in a 2 day CNSC hearing .

Finally, NCWC is strongly supportive of PCWO’s views that approval of the Bruce Power proposal could well lead the way for the routine import, export and transport within Canada, by road, highway and water, of radioactive wastes, some of which emit very dangerous and long-lived radiation and are of immediate and long term danger to workers, the general public and the environment in transit or in case of an accident; that Bruce Power should abide by its 2006 Environmental Assessment agreement and deal with this nuclear waste at its Ontario Power Generation Western Management Facility ; and, that in the public interest the proposal should be subject of a complete Environmental Assessment, or at least a new hearing based on correct information.

Sincerely,

Mary Scott, President NCWC With background information from Gracia Janes.

HOW TO HELP THE NCWC EDUCATION FUND

Thanks to donations from our loyal supporters, the NCWC Education Fund, in partnership with the National Council of Women of Canada, has been able to enhance work beyond the 2008-2010 time frame of our original ‘Water/Energy Connections’ grant (funded by the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation ), through the addition of the above mentioned third (2010) AGM meeting which focused on nuclear power and women’s health.

We are now moving on to further work in the important area of women’s health through our new COMMON program on Women and Mental Health, which will be the topic of our 2011 NCWC EF AGM sessions in Winnipeg, and the subject of ongoing study, programs and policy development.

If you wish to help NCWC Education Fund financially please send a donation to NCWC Education Fund, c/o NCWC 506-251 Bank Street, Ottawa Ontario K2P 0L4. You will receive a prompt receipt for tax purposes .

For those of you who prefer internet giving, we are listed on the CanadaHelps.org web site . Just google CanadaHelps.org, then type in NCWC Education Fund in the box at the bottom of the page and click on “go” . A description of NCWC EF will come up and at the side there is a “donate” button to click. Canada Helps is a Canada-wide organization which has all Canadian charities listed . They process the donation and send the donation on to us.

Recently we were able to enlarge our description on the CanadaHelps web site and make it easy for people to give on the net as well as to have donations put directly into our bank account. Therefore, while CanadaHelps.org will as usual send you a tax receipt for charitable purposes, (less 3.9% for their administration costs) we will send you a thank-you letter to acknowledge your kind support.

Any help we receive goes towards the vital joint work of the NCW Education Fund and its partner, the National Council of Women of Canada.

88

monic Orchestra. Kregal is “the principal visionary of the Scajaquada Pathway ”, a two mile path that links Buffalo’s largest park with the Niagara River-walk. On a walk with Kregal, Wooster documented carefully a number of inspiring signs of the Creek’s recovery from a former abandoned industrial waste-land. They observed giant Snapping Turtles sunning themselves on rocks, red wing black birds trilling, beaver-cut trees and “grown men fishing all along the Scajaquada.” The most spectacular sight was that of a “Great blue heron following the creek like a map upstream.”

Wooster shows that nothing about how to protect the environment in the Great Lakes is dull, but is however, terribly under- reported. She describes the drama of the debates concerning the status of the American eel as an endangered species, where she was expelled from one study session for not being properly invited. She gives a glimpse of the debate over whether there is a migratory ocean-ic population of Atlantic Salmon in the upper St. Lawrence River, and of the Onondaga’s plan to restore it to the lake in whose waters their ancient Iroquois Confederacy was founded. She also in-forms us that Americans are planning to launch a NAFTA challenge to Ontario’s coal burning emis-sions at the Nanticoke Generating Plant, one of the major sources of acid rain emissions contaminat-ing the lakes of the Adirondacks.

In a quite moving fashion Wooster shows the dedi-cation of the many environmental champions who work to restore Great Lakes ecosystems, without the appreciation they deserve. One astonishing fig-ure from Buffalo, Stan Spisak, is shown on the Buf-falo River with the then New York State Senator Robert Kennedy. Spisak was also able at this time to meet with US President Lyndon Johnson, show him samples of contaminated sludge, and persuade him to issue an Executive Order to prohibit the dumping of dredged materials into Lake Erie. Another is the Mohawk artist Ray Fadden, founder of the Six Na-tions Museum in Onchiota. Aware of the problem of the continuing disruption of the Adirondacks with acid rain and mercury, he has taken the unusual step

of “feeding the wildlife, including eleven bears, to help them survive the loss of natural food sources and valuable habitat.”

Throughout “Living Waters”, Wooster explains how easy healing the earth would be if we simply used the “good mind” to work with nature rather than making war upon it. As with many of her best examples, this is shown most vividly in her home city of Buffalo. It is committed to the most costly way of handling its garbage, incineration. As a re-sult it has “a garbage recycling rate of only 6.5 per cent compared to a national average for cit-ies of about 30 percent, with cities like Guelph recycling well over 50 percent of their munici-pal waste.” Another, technically at least, painless path for ecological restoration, is to dissuade the New York State Thruway Authority from annually pouring multi-millions of dollars into what now has become the purely recreational Erie Canal, “in light of its continuing potential as an invasive spe-cies vector and its impacts on the Oswego River, Montezuma Swamp, and other wetland ecosystems across the state.”

One of the reasons that “Living Waters” is such good reading is that it will help the environmental-ists who are blessed by reading it, feel better about what they do. You will certainly see yourself as the dedicated orchestra timpanist, rather than the grumpy short sighted curmudgeon .

H2O

NCWC Education fund506-251 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1X3

Phone 613 232-5025 ▪ ncwc@magma.ca

Gracia JanesBox 1590, Niagara-on-the-Lake ON L0S 1J0phone 905 468-2841 ▪ gracia.janes@bellnet.ca

Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet By Bill McKibben, Alfred A. Knoph, 2010 : Dr. John Bacher,

Bill McKibben’s “Eaarth”, marvellously invites a new word to highlight the situation that all of us will endure for the rest of our lives - a world out of balance. This is the basis for the change of spelling of Earth, to denote how dangerously humans have altered the global ecosystem.

The distorted planet was created when the carbon dioxide per million in the atmosphere began to exceed 350 a decade ago. While others point to catastrophe if we go beyond the current 390 benchmark, McKibben maintains that the struggle should be focused on the need to make reductions back to the natural safe level as quickly as possible, through living “lightly, carefully, gracefully.”

Given his stress on the need for lightness, care and grace, it is not surprising that McKibben gives an eloquent critique of those who point to nuclear power as the answer to the problem of global warming. He points out that, “nuclear plants are frightening, in part because new ones spill so much red ink. A series of recent studies have found that the capital costs of new conventional atomic reactors have gotten so high that, even before you factor in fuel and operations, you’re talking seventeen to twenty-two cents per kilowatt hour-which is two or three times what Americans currently pay for electricity.”

McKibben warns that nuclear costs are usually further inflated because of the fact that their electrical plants are always delayed. This has played havoc on Finland’s decision in 2002 to develop more nuclear power as part of a strategy to reduce its carbon emissions. Its new reactor he notes, “was supposed to be completed in 2009 but now won’t be online until at least 2012, and the original budget has gone up by more a half to $6.2 billion...As a result of troubles like that, a 2008 report from Moody’s Investors Services concluded that any utility that decided to build a reactor could add $500 million in interest costs. The bottom line is that building enough conventional nuclear reactors to eliminate a tenth of the threat of global warming would cost about $8 trillion, not to mention running electricity prices through the roof. You’d need to open

FROM THE PEN OF

a new reactor every two weeks for the next forty years and, as the analyst Joe Romm points out, you’d have to open ten new Yucca Mountains to store the waste. Meanwhile, uranium prices have gone up by a factor of six this decade, because we’re-you guessed it-running out of the easy-to-find stuff and miners are having to dig deeper.”

The lighter, graceful measures that McKibben calls for are quite varied. One of the most compelling that he presents is the potential of composting. He estimates that, “If Vermont as a whole recycled all its food waste, it could compost twenty thousand acres of vegetable fields, which would be enough to grow most of the produce its citizens consume. And if Vermont is a little place, imagine if New York City composted; it’s comparatively easy to collect food wastes when there are more people living on the West Side than in all of Vermont. The resulting fertilizer would be enough to make New Jersey the Garden State once more.” Indeed, this is a book with a realistic yet hopeful message for us all in these difficult times!

Bill McKibben