YES There are cleaner, cheaper alternatives

As physicians, our interest in nuclear dangers stems from long-standing concerns about nuclear weapons and proliferation and the risks to human and planetary health caused by radioactive contamination. Chronic exposure to atomic radiation has the potential to cause cancer, genetic disease, birth defects, infertility and other illnesses.

Our federal government and four provincial governments are keen to site small modular nuclear reactors (SMNRs) in remote areas, including the oilsands, the far north, and Indigenous lands. Plans are to build SMNRs on the grounds of aging nuclear reactors, including Darlington (east of Toronto in a densely populated area), and Point Lepreau, N.B., on the ecologically sensitive Bay of Fundy.

The nuclear industry, hoping to reverse its worldwide decline of recent decades, has persuaded government officials and the public that these unbuilt, untested reactors, based on previously unsuccessful designs, qualify as “green energy” and will solve our climate crisis. But nuclear energy is not the answer to our climate emergency. It is just too risky. Here are a few reasons:

> Nuclear projects consistently run many years behind schedule, making them irrelevant to our urgent climate crisis. They routinely exceed budgets by billions, making them far too expensive. Public dollars spent on renewables could sustainably address the climate crisis right now. Additionally, nuclear off-site damage is uninsurable — the taxpayer bears the costs of leakage, accident and cleanup, costing billions more.

> The dilemma of what to do with highly toxic radioactive nuclear waste remains unsolved. This deadly legacy persists for longer than humankind has walked the earth. Presently, there are 57,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste in storage at Canadian nuclear reactor sites, increasing every day. The proposed solution of burying it deep in the ground, hoping that it won’t contaminate local drinking water, soil and air, is fantasy. These projects have not succeeded anywhere.

> Proponents of molten salt SMNRs use the words “recycling nuclear waste” to describe the process of removing the tiny fraction of plutonium in CANDU waste for fuel, and to “reduce nuclear waste.” This process leaves harder-tohandle radioactive waste, increasing the complexity and cost of radioactive waste management. Clearly, this is not a solution to our nuclear waste dilemma.

> Reprocessing or extracting plutonium is known to be a risky business, banned in U.S. in the 1970s. Canada followed suit with a voluntary plutonium extraction ban. Has recent government support for SMNRs unwittingly changed Canada’s position against plutonium extraction? In 1974, India utilized Canada’s gift of a research nuclear reactor to make its first nuclear weapons.

Will Canada now approve industry’s aspirations to export SMNRs to countries who may become intent on acquiring nuclear weapons? This would implicate Canada in the scary new age of a “plutonium economy” just when we are hearing overt threats of nuclear weapons usage in the Ukraine war.

> Catastrophic nuclear accidents, though rare, do happen — think Fukushima, and Chernobyl. Contrary to industry claims, SMNRs would be equally susceptible to such accidents since all nuclear plants depend on engineering to keep irradiated fuel constantly cooled and contained. Loss of containment can occur, whether from meltdowns, explosions or external events, causing widespread contamination from radioactive poisons. An accident like Fukushima occurring in Toronto would cause population displacement and radioactive exposure of possibly millions of people.

> The current conflict in Ukraine has shown that nuclear power installations can act as nuclear weapons ready to explode if struck, or melt down if their electrical power supply is interrupted. The Zaporizhzhia reactor in Ukraine suffered a near direct hit, luckily escaping a massive radiation release similar to Chornobyl’s 1986 accident, which led to the large exclusion zone in the heart of Ukraine’s wheat belt. SMNRs might pose a bigger risk, as there would be more reactors to strike.

As physicians, we know that our health depends on a clean and peaceful planet. Why exacerbate the known dangers of nuclear technology with many small new reactors? SMNRs are too slow to help with the climate crisis. They create more toxic waste while being at risk of devastating accidents and widespread nuclear proliferation. In keeping with the precautionary principle, and when we have cleaner cheaper sustainable alternatives, why would we choose nuclear energy? It is just too risky.