Absolutely. That is at the heart of the matter. The difficulty is not when the radioactive waste is in the steel containers, where I agree there is great protection. The real problem here is the true risk that is presented. As soon as you take it out of secure storage and put it into transportation, the risk goes up significantly, and that has not been quantified. I didn't see a single number that characterized the likelihood of an accident. The only number that was put in the record as to the seriousness of the accident was 1% of one of the 16 generators, with only 13.2% of the material actually being available. I think that is so optimistic an assessment that it simply does not have credibility in terms of the likelihood of an accident and then how serious the release is and then beyond that what happens to it.
The assumption that was built in is strictly that it is diluted in a large amount of water. That is not how we solve environmental problems. There is discussion about public health, but there is not a single bit of evidence that I have been able to see that addresses exposure to micro-organisms, plant life, or fish life in the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence. There is much talk about environmental review; I was not able to find anything in the record.
At the outset, Bruce Nuclear said there was zero risk, that no risk was presented. I am not aware of anything in life in which there is no risk, so from start to finish, in terms of the assessment of the risk presented, I simply do not think that the job was done. Suggestions that somehow or other environmental activists have been feeding Mayor Lapointe and our other leadership are simply not true, and I don't think they respect the people who are in office and really care about the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence.