Canada -   

1
Anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott says Port Hope is the most dangerous place to human health. Port Hope mayor Linda Thompson speaks on Canada AM, Friday, Nov. 19, 2010. Anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott says Port Hope is the most dangerous place to human health.

Ont. town mayor rebuffs criticism from anti-nuke activist

Viewer

CTV News Video

Canada AM: Dr. Helen Caldicott, activist
An anti-nuclear activist explains why she believes Port Hope is a carcinogenic time bomb. She says everyone who lives in the community should leave and launch a class action law suit against the Federal government.
Canada AM: Linda Thompson, mayor
The mayor of Port Hope says the community is a healthy and safe place to live, and no one should feel the need to move. She explains how the controversial comments made by anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott anger her and the rest of the community.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (25) Facebook   

Anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott says Port Hope is the most dangerous place to human health. Port Hope mayor Linda Thompson speaks on Canada AM, Friday, Nov. 19, 2010. Anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott says Port Hope is the most dangerous place to human health.

Photos

Anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott says Port Hope is the most dangerous place to human health.

View Larger Image

Date: Fri. Nov. 19 2010 4:30 PM ET

The fallout from an anti-nuclear activist's condemnation of a picturesque Ontario community continues, even as the town's mayor insists the criticism is unfounded.

Dr. Helen Caldicott made her controversial remarks on Tuesday, telling the crowd gathered at a hotel outside Port Hope that the town is tainted by an unchecked legacy of nuclear waste.

"You are passive victims of their criminal negligence," Caldicott said in the speech recorded and subsequently posted to YouTube.

"Check my facts, check the data and make up your own mind if you want to stay in Port Hope," she said, advising the town's residents to flee, then sue for "millions and millions."

Located on the shores of Lake Ontario, about 150 kilometres northeast of Toronto, Port Hope is home to approximately 16,000 people.

The town has been dealing with nuclear material since the 1930s, when it began processing radioactive material at the Eldorado Nuclear Limited plant, now known as Cameco. The plant -- still Canada's only uranium conversion facility -- was the source for the nuclear material used in the first atomic bomb.

In an interview with CTV's Canada AM on Friday, the Australian-born pediatrician, author and longtime anti-nuclear activist stood by her claims and placed the blame squarely on Ottawa.

"It's a dear little town," Caldicott said. "But it's a problem of the irresponsible federal government right from the very beginning not telling people the truth, not informing them, not doing health studies, not measuring their urine for radiation."

Although she concedes the nuclear industry operated under less stringent regulations before the 1970s, Port Hope Mayor Linda Thompson firmly disagrees that the issue has gone unnoticed.

"The reality is Port Hope has been monitored extensively since that time. We're probably one of the most monitored communities in Canada," Thompson told Canada AM.

According to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, dozens of environmental and epidemiological studies conducted in Port Hope have all pointed to the same conclusion -- that the town is safe for residents.

But Caldicott says no amount of exposure to radiation can be considered safe.

"I know people are attached to their town, but it's medically contra-indicated for people to live in radioactive areas because all radiation is dangerous," she said in an interview from Iqaluit. "It's cumulative, each dose that you get adds to your risk of getting cancer."

Unconvinced, Thompson says Caldicott's brand of "drive-by science' has left her and the town incensed.

"Members of our community hit this problem head on and are dealing with it," Thompson insisted. "They continue to ask questions, which is great, and it's made the community and regulatory authorities more accountable to make sure we are a safe and healthy community."

Caldicott's remarks coincide with the start of a major Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. project to transfer one million cubic litres of contaminated soil from various sites within town limits to a sealed mound north of the lakeside community.

The transfer is expected to take ten years.

Comments are now closed for this story

Magis
said
0 0

I guess the good doctor doesn't want people to:- eat bananas (which contain radioactive potassium isotopes)- fly on a plane (transatlantic flights are equivalent to 170 chest x-rays because you're that much closer to outer space)- live in a high-elevation area like Colorado (for same reason as above)- have any contact with soil or seawater (which contains trace amounts of uranium)What an idiot. We're constantly exposed to radiation, and it's consistently been demonstrated that low-level doses produce no adverse health effects.


Goldens
said
0 0

Devil's Advocate you forgot cigarets: Conservative estimates put the level of radiation absorbed by a pack-and-a-half a day smoker at the equivalent of 300 chest X-rays every year. The same for second hand smoke


Retired in Burlington
said
0 0

An Austalian tells us Port Hope is not safe town to live in. An American economist tells us our housing market is overpriced and should be more in line with the American market. A thinktank from Paris tells us our economy is in trouble and our economic growth has come to a screeching halt. Are there any Canadians out there who can offer an opinion. I am 67years old and spent every summer of my childhood playing with my cousins in Port Hope, currently I have no form of radiation poisoning that I am aware of, nor do I have any form of cancer according to the results of my recent last check up. Fear mongers go find something wrong in your own country.


KJ in Kingston Ontario
said
0 0

No one has done more harm to the cause of responsible use of environment and its natural resources than the fringe environmental movement and they sympathizers. If it had not been for the over-reaction to the risks, the US would not have become so reliant on coal and natural gas electrical power... People seem to think the nuclear industry is still stuck in the past technology. If Dalton and Company had the guts and the good sense to put resources into nuclear electrical power research and generation, we wouldn't be looking at the situation 80 cent per kilowatt power in the very near future. This really has little to do with Port Hope of course. Nice little town, everyone should spend a weekend there -- especially in the Fall.


GHW
said
0 0

Perhaps if Al Gore and David Z can find a way to make money of this it would get some legs.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said
0 0

@ julie in Toronto - not Port Hope: If you actually read my comment before pulling your little cap gun out of your holster and firing (a developing habit), you'd know that I quoted the findings of the CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION and its assessment of 50 years of study in Port Hope. (Do your homework, Julie. Mine led to the support of the Mayor's assertions.) Your suggestion that your argumentative armchair assessment is superior to that of the CNSC, an authoritative federal government agency, is the definition of "laughable." Stick to the FACTS, Julie. (Your selective reference to the harbor doesn't alter the fundamental, baseline picture as put forth. Overall, radiation levels in Port Hope ARE on a reasonable par with those found in other places. Again, you can verify this with unbiased research.) Contrary to your overenthusiastic quibbling, nobody's suggesting that there aren't related "concerns" in Port Hope. The story, however, centers on the dubious contention that Port Hope is, essentially, an uninhabitable radioactive nightmare of a place. That, in itself, is nuclear garbage. Take care.


J Nat
said
0 0

If you have an informed agreement with her, or not, she is the salt of Canada folks. This is a woman who found it necessary to intervene in her community, and I'm sure she would rather not have this stuff on her mind. Sometimes people don't like being woken up from their slumber, but they better disprove her with lots of examinations of this issue.


PORT HOPE FAN
said
0 0

Let us get to the bottom of this once and for all.The Town of Port Hope should be thoroughly examined for radiation levels in buildings, land, air, water, etc. IMMEDIATELY by a totally independent scientific entity.The results and its ramifications health wise, etc. should be made public for all to see. We owe this to future generations.Keep it simple.


mark
said
0 0

For over 30 years, the public and concerned Canadians have been asking for a public inquiry into this historic mistake in Port Hope. Unfortunately, the government - provincial and federal - have repeatedly refused. Even as recently as last year, the CNSC argued that there is insufficient public concern or environmental impact to warrant a public hearing into the Port Hope clean-up project. The Province of Ontario is most culpable. It has discontinued it's regulatory oversight and mandate for contamination in Port Hope on the grounds that it now lacks jurisdiction...although it exercised regulatory functions for decades and the federal government has not challenged it's power.The public is left with industry and government ( partners in creating and overseeing the waste) re-assurances; unsubstantiated, untested and unsworn. Canadians must demand a hearing or review where the decision making is not left to the discretion of the party facing the bill for creating the problems and injustices in the first place. Most importantly, health studies need to be conducted on the people who lived in Port Hope since the industry moved there 70 years ago. Contrary to the myth perpetuated by the government and industry, the current studies relied on by polluters, are only theoretical risk assessments. In other words....the government and the the private multi-national corporation that bought the gov't owned industry when if was privatized a decade ago..have adhered to the "wilfully blind" defence. That is....they have avoided civil and criminal liability by intentionally putting themselves in the position where they can claim to be unaware of the facts which would render them liable.Thank goodness for brave, educated, experienced leaders like Helen Caldicott for putting the polluters on notice that willful blindness will no longer be a valid defence. Do the health studies. Have a hearing into the facts.


julie in Toronto - not Port Hope
said
0 0

Pye.. I though you of all people would look up your own facts, rather than rely on the tainted 'facts' of the major. It is well known that the Harbor of Port Hope contains low-levels of radionucleotide contamination. The key term here is low levels, but certaintly far above the levels found anywhere else in Lake Ontario. The fact remains the harbor is contaminated and a quarter billion dollars is committed to its clean up. If it were fine and on a reasonable par with other locations in Southern Ontario, then I guess the gov. is wasting money.If I lived in Port Hope, I would be very angry at this women. But, as a resident I would be equally appalled at the length of time it has taken to remove the contaminated sediments from the harbour. Whether or not there are fact based connections between the levels of waste in the harbour and health effects in the community, that harbour needs to be cleaned up...P.S. DO NOT eat fish from Lake Ontario. OH.. re the first post... Your understanding of radioactivity is laughable.


PBW
said
0 0

Is this "doctor" ignorant of what goes on in other branches of medicine? She says that " . . . no amount of exposure to radiation can be considered safe. ", yet it is used in various forms on a daily basis by physicians. Remember the big fuss when Chalk River was closed down and doctors were scrambling to find radioactive isotopes for tests? Whether she like the idea or not, nuclear power - and the need for nuclear fuel - will be with us for a long time. "Green" alternatives like solar and wind power are not reliable enough, as there are times when the wind does not blow and the sun doesn't shine. Rather than criticize us for our necessary need for energy, perhaps Dr. Caldicott would do better to return to the land of her birth and criticize that nation for its use of coal-burning power stations. Hydro and nuclear form a fair percentage of Canada's power supply (perhaps she would ban hydro too, for its impact on the environment?), a percentage that should be expanded to reduce our reliance on fossil-fueled generating station . . . and throw in the odd windmill and solar farm for good luck. All in all, I vehemently object to foreigners who come here and criticize us and ignore their home nations. Pure hypocrisy.


Lz in Edmonton
said
0 0

There are two types of environmentalists. The first type are well educated, learn that there is a cost to living on this planet and are respectiveful to communities and try to asset them in solving environmental challenges and concerns. The second type, are those fools who think they know what the environment needs and then make statements, yell/scream with all types of nonesense thinking they are doing good for the community. SADLY, type two are the one that gets the press and causes not only financial hardship, but true environmental damage as people and governments then fight them instead of solving the real environmental issues. You can list almost all "organized and well funded" enviromental groups in the type 2 category... I won't list names.


Devil's Advocate
said
0 0

Oops. Electronic equipment may not necessarily emit alpha, beta or Gamma radiation. That's from radioactive isotopes in the machines themselves, like C60 in radiation machines used to treat cancer, or that iodine isotope used by radiologists to find fractures which don't appear on x-rays.


Bob from Petawawa
said
0 0

I find this lady for a lack of better terms for her full of it. I was in the military early and mid 80s. We had and wore dosimeter on our dog tag chain around our necks. I spent many, many weeks in Port Hope with friends who lived there and guess what? Not once when my dosimeter was taken and tested by the army during that time did it ever show a higher then normal Rad count. I sure wonder where she is getting her facts from.


Pam in BC
said
0 0

Can someone tell me how a paediatrician would know it Port Hope is safe to live in or not. I did not know they took nuclear training in med school. O Wait A Minute, that’s right, she is a anti-nuclear activist's which makes her an expert in the field. Read a google report on radiation and then you qualify to be a nuclear expert and tell everyone how much danger they are in. All I can say to this , this, this person is go home and leave us alone. We are not interested in you garbage. I also wonder how much money she is making on these tours of hers.


Mike P in Ontario
said
0 0

I find it very interesting that this so called Doctor had no problems going to Port Hope to give this controversial talk. If it is so unsafe then why did she feel it was safe for her to go there to spout off. Caldicott says no amount of exposure to radiation can be considered safe so how much radiation did she get when she was there? I would also like to know what special training this Australian-born paediatrician, and I will say again paediatrician has to allow her to say that Port Hope is so contaminated. The bottom line here is that she is a anti-nuclear activist's and we all know how these people take facts and figures and twist them around so that it sounds like the world is coming to an end. I don’t understand why CTV and Canada AM even gave her time on air to spout more fear mongering. Why does she not go home so that she does not have to worry about radiation exposure in Canada.


Ron from Georgetown
said
0 0

We are exposed daily to radiation and obviously there are safe levels of it. What purpose does this serve. Let science determine what the safe levels are and pay attention to it. The sun give us radiation. Want to shut it down.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said
0 0

Environmental zealots (as distinguished from environmental activists) never let the commonly accepted facts stand in the way of their passionate beliefs, and love to assert that government is covering up their truth. Port Hope has been studied and tested countless times over the decades. My understanding, based upon the Mayor's repeated "fact"-based claims, is that the level of radiation in Port Hope is on a reasonable par with most places in southern Ontario and locations elsewhere. (One expects that local cancer rates have been analyzed.) Apparently, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission released a report in April 2009 which was a "synthesis" of 40 health studies conducted over 50 years, and it indicated that no adverse health effects have occurred, or are likely to occur, as a result of nuclear industry operations there. What superior credibility does a vocally determined pediatrician have? What are "her" facts and "her" supporting data? At this point, perhaps Port Hope residents should be suing Caldicott for her stubborn and seemingly malicious insistence on portraying the town as a nuclear waste dump that is uninhabitable and of negative real estate worth, and nail her for the "millions and millions" of dollars in damage she may be causing with her contradicting environmental crusade. Who knows.


JB in Ontario
said
0 0

Port Hope is such a quaint little Ontario town. It is upsetting to hear of this.


Skin Cancer Awareness GURU
said
0 0

Good Afternoon Helen, The Sun also causes cancer to skin. You might want to become aware of this due to your complexion and the damage it appears to have had on your skin. When will you be advising us to evacuate earth? What government officials can we sue for too much sun exposure? Thank you, Unconvinced by "Drive by Conclusions"


dwayne in da peg
said
0 0

She has not practiced medicine in decades and to say living in Port Hope is medically conraindicated is absurd. Yes radiation is dangerous and should be treated with respect. But she say all radiation is bad...news flash lady...we are surrounded by radiation every day there is radiation exposure from the sun and our environment. Flying in an airplane increases your radiation exposure...should we shut down that industry too?Complete nut job!!!!


DM Smith
said
0 0

Anti nuclearism is somewhat like a religion. You either believe or you don't. Facts are irrelevant to these people. Decisions about nuclear issues must be made based on the best scientific evidence and facts available at the time. If better data comes along in the future, then our decisions can be reviewed and a new direction taken if necessary. Psuedo science and personal beliefs should be ignored.


robin hood
said
0 0

It makes sense to me that radiation exposure would present with other health concerns other then cancer. Are there reports on declined birth rate in Port Hope due to sterilization of both male and females? How about birth deformities or other afflictions such as Down syndrome, perhaps an increase of learning disabilities in children etc.?


J
said
0 0

Nuclear power is part of the future and people need to wake up and realize it.


Devil's Advocate
said
0 0

More fear mongering... Well if no amount of radiation is safe, well I guess we should completely remove radios, cellphones, the internet... well anything electronic emits electromagnetic radiation of some type, and other electronics emit the alpha, beta, and gamma types. Kind of ironic that most of the culprits are in the medical field as diagnostic equipment, like X-rays, (gamma radiation) and MRI machines,(electromagnetic) and so on. I wonder how well this esteemed mecical professional will feel trying her practice without any electricity, and in her time off go home and burn lanterns, and play board games all night in the cold...


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Canada Stories

Double lung transplant recipient Helene Campbell appears on 'Ellen,' on Friday, May 25, 2012.

Campbell celebrates recovery with 'Ellen' appearance

More   13 Comments 13    10 Video(s) 10

Gatineau Quebec Police investigate an abandoned van that may be connected to a major crime scene that happened kilometer away were multiple bodies were found on Thursday May 24,2012 in Gatineau, Que. across the river from Ottawa. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand

Estranged husband charged in Gatineau, Que., murders

More  1 Video(s) 1

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty holds a press conference in Toronto on Friday, May 25, 2012.

Federal deficit falling despite $9B spike in March

More  1 Video(s) 1

Most Talked about Stories

I feel that if certain organs were in demand, less effort would be made to revive people. Am I being silly? Not really. I had a bad experience in hospital when my heart stopped, the doctors tried to revive me and failed. They stopped and said I was gone. I came around on my own when the nurse was giving a final BP reading of 'zero'. I heard her declare me dead! It was all I could do to shake my head but they never caught on til I was able to open my eyes. You should have seen them scramble then! I thought the nurse was going to faint. The thing is, I think we may write people off too soon when there is something of value to be gained from them.

me

Should all Canadians be automatically considered organ donors?