The Town of Creighton is tearing down some anti-nuclear-waste signs across the community amid concerns they mislead the public.
Town council has agreed with a request to remove any protest signs on public property that depict the international symbol for radiation.
The move comes at the urging of the Community Liaison Committee (CLC), which forms a bridge between the public and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the agency looking for a site to store Canada’s radioactive waste.
In a letter reviewed by town council last week, CLC co-chairs George Trevor and Rod Gourlay pointed out that the radiation symbol – known as the trefoil – is used to designate the presence of hazardous radioactive materials.
“Over-use or the inappropriate use of this symbol could lead to citizens becoming complacent when encountering this symbol in situations where caution truly should be exercised,” the men wrote.
Misinformed
Trevor and Gourlay wrote that while the CLC supports freedom of speech, there is worry that the public is “misinformed” by trefoil-bearing protest signs.
In addition to those signs, the town plans to remove other unauthorized signage from public property, including power poles.
Town council has directed its public works department to take down the signs.
The CLC is also asking the City of Flin Flon and Northern Village of Denare Beach
to remove signs that use the trefoil.
At a meeting earlier this summer, the CLC voted 4-3 to urge all three local municipalities
to take down the signs, with some members claiming use of the trefoil in non-radioactive settings is illegal.
But Canada’s nuclear waste regulator says use of the radiation symbol in the absence of radiation is only against the law in certain, and debatable, circumstances.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) says the trefoil is covered by Section 23 of its regulations, which states: “No person shall post or keep posted a sign that indicates that presence of radiation, a nuclear substance or prescribed equipment at a place where the radiation, nuclear substances or prescribed equipment indicated on the sign is not present.”
In a statement to The Reminder, the CNSC said that in order for Section 23 to apply, there must be a “reasonable belief” that radiation, nuclear substance or prescribed equipment is actually present.
“Therefore, in order for this to fall under Section 23, there needs to be evidence that a sign or the posting of a sign would indicate that there is the presence of radiation, nuclear substance or prescribed equipment,” said the CNSC. “If there is reasonable belief that the sign or the posting of the sign will lead people to falsely believe that there is the presence of radiation, nuclear substance or prescribed equipment in a place, then this would be a concern to the CNSC.
“However, if this is simply a statement being made and by seeing the sign people do not believe that there is the presence of radiation, nuclear substance or prescribed equipment in the place where the sign is located, then Section 23 does not apply.”
