Talk:Nuclear power in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
This page requires major revision. I have edited the most egregious of the errors, but the rest remains substandard both in style and content. Use at your own risk, just like the rest of Wikipedia. Whitlock 14:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] May 23
I can't stand it any longer. I am doing a total rewrite, --DV8 2XL 23:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okie doke.. But you seem to have removed some relevent information. What was wrong with it before? It wasn't complete, to be sure, but I don't think it was incorrect. TastyCakes 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- nm, I'm pretty sure you got everything in there. TastyCakes 05:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you've cut and paste some of this from here. Is there any other plagiarism we should know about? TastyCakes 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I see there is: [1] TastyCakes 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SLOWPOKE
Added a paragraph about the SLOWPOKE reactor. Hugo Dufort 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article Name
The article seems to have grown beyond the scope of "Nuclear Power", should it be renamed? Something like Nuclear Technology in Canada or something? That doesn't flow very well... TastyCakes 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Biased
This article seems very biased. There's no mention of any of the controversy surrounding nuclear power (including the new proposal for a reactor in Alberta). The whole thing reads like an industry brochure. "Canada’s used reactor fuel is now safely stored on an interim basis at licensed facilities located where the waste is produced." That's a pretty rosy way of saying that reactors store their waste on site because Canada has no long term disposal strategy in place. Ae491 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)ae491
- Canada stores its used fuel on site because there is no need, nor rush, to create a central repository at this time. It is incorrect to say that there is no long-term strategy in place, since the recently approved strategy of "Adaptive Phased Management" represents such a strategy (as the article points out).
- The article did state incorrectly that the technology for long-term management doesn't exist, so I fixed this. The technology exists to the level of a pre-siting Environmental Assessment, which was a ten-year process that concluded in 1998 that the technology was sound (but lacking public support). See summary of Canada's nuclear used fuel management at http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm#v.
- As for including a discussion of the controversy, I'm not sure I understand. If it's a general discussion of the long-time controversy surrounding this technology, that might be interesting and I encourage you to submit some text on that topic. Otherwise, this article attempts to present the facts, like an encylopedia should. Whitlock 04:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
