More Chalk River Fallout

Linda Keen testified today before the Natural Resources Committee. After the ridiculous amount of spin coming from both the PMO and minister Lunn, it was refreshing to hear someone speak out on the fundamental point behind all of this horsing about:

Ms. Keen said the risk of a nuclear accident without the backup system in place stood at one in a thousand –1,000 times higher than the international standard of one in a million, she said.
...
“Some have suggested that the chance of a nuclear accident was low and that the reactor was safe enough. Well, with respect, safe enough is simply not good enough,” said Ms. Keen, suggesting safety standards should be no different than those met by the Space Shuttle or a jumbo jet.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - you do NOT play games with safety systems. EVER.

“Under the law, the commission did not have the authority to take the issue of isotopes into consideration,” Ms. Keen testified Tuesday, noting her mandate was solely to protect Canadians from a nuclear incident.

“Independence in regulating nuclear facilities matters. It matters because nuclear reactors are in communities where Canadians live,” she said. “They need to know that the commission will make its decision based on what's right.”

Sadly for the HarperCon$, Ms. Keen is right, the legislation that binds the scope of the CNSC does not provide the commission with the authority to consider topics such as the implications of the shutdown itself.

Three days later, she said, Mr. Lunn called again and told her what action to take.

Mr. Lunn has denied telling the independent commission what to do, but Ms. Keen was adamant: “There is no doubt we were being told what to do and when to do it.”

Lunn's denials don't square with the letter that Keen sent to Mr. Lunn in December. Somehow, in light of the number of times the HarperCon$ have been caught in outright lies, I think Lunn's denials are past their useful shelf life.

Ms. Keen said Parliament is supreme and its decision was not easy but “one appropriately made by the elected representatives of Canadians.”

Which, I've said repeatedly that Bill C-38 was in fact appropriate under the circumstances. (even though I disagree with restarting the reactor without completing the safety work that the license required 17 months or more previously)