{"id":27830,"date":"2013-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2013-11-26T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ashleydev.com\/2013\/11\/26\/what-did-fukushima-mean-for-canadians\/"},"modified":"2020-08-27T11:41:21","modified_gmt":"2020-08-27T15:41:21","slug":"what-did-fukushima-mean-for-canadians","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cna.ca\/fr\/2013\/11\/26\/what-did-fukushima-mean-for-canadians\/","title":{"rendered":"What did Fukushima Mean for Canadians?"},"content":{"rendered":"

By John Stewart<\/strong>
\n Director, Policy and Research<\/em>
\n Canadian Nuclear Association<\/em><\/p>\n

The other day I had a call from a company wanting to import used machines from Japan to Alberta. The machines had been operating 500 km away from Fukushima Daiichi \u2013 well on the other side of Tokyo from the disabled nuclear plant.<\/p>\n

The company were concerned that their new (old) hardware might be so contaminated with radiation that it won\u2019t be admitted to Canada.<\/p>\n

I told them even the resident evacuation zone near Fukushima was only 20 to 30 km wide \u2013 and many now think that was a costly overreaction.<\/p>\n

\"Chinook<\/a>

Chinook salmon moving upstream (Credit: Dan Cook, Wikimedia Commons)<\/p><\/div>\n

However overcautious my callers were, their fears were less far-fetched than saying Canadians might be harmed by (for example) trace radiation in ocean debris or in migrating salmon.<\/p>\n

The trans-Pacific distances are so immense, the dilution so great, the source so comparatively modest, our intakes so diversified, as to make this virtually impossible.<\/p>\n

Canadian residents, even West Coast shore-dwellers, are at greater risk from the radiation in sunlight than from Fukushima. Rather than wishing Ottawa would rad-test your salmon, put on a hat.<\/p>\n

Debris-radiation dread in turn has much more fright value than our country\u2019s nuclear generating plants. That\u2019s a story that was really tough to make scary.<\/p>\n

\"Darlington<\/a>

Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (Credit: Ontario Power Generation)<\/p><\/div>\n

Canada\u2019s power reactors caused no radiation harm in fifty years of operation, and are different from Daiichi in all major respects \u2013 different fuel, core axis, moderator, containment, and geological zone.<\/p>\n

Not just that; but Canada\u2019s response to Fukushima was world-leading.<\/p>\n

After the 2011 tsunami, Canada\u2019s nuclear regulators staffed a 24\/7 emergency operations centre. They inspected all plants and other facilities, checking readiness of earthquake preparedness, firefighting capability, backup power, hydrogen management and fuel cooling bays. And they had operators review all the lessons they could from the Daiichi accident.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile the regulators, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), created a task force to study how plants would deal with events more extreme than they\u2019d considered before, and how their capabilities would stand up.<\/p>\n

Not only did the CNSC task force determine that Canada\u2019s nuclear plants are safe; one year after Fukushima, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the CNSC\u2019s response was prompt, robust, comprehensive, and a good model for other regulatory bodies.<\/p>\n

No, for Canadians, if there is a post-Fukushima story, it isn\u2019t trans-Pacific radiation. And it\u2019s sure not reactor safety.
\nRather, the story \u2013 one it\u2019s time we heard more about — is in the role Canadian people and organizations played in global efforts to make this industry better and safer.<\/p>\n

\"wano-logo\"<\/a>For example, Tom Mitchell, CEO of Ontario Power Generation, chaired the World Association of Nuclear Operators\u2019 (WANO\u2019s) Post-Fukushima Commission. WANO is the foremost safety organization of the people who actually operate nuclear plants.<\/p>\n

Under Tom Mitchell\u2019s leadership, the Commission has driven WANO to:<\/p>\n