I read with sadness your editorial claiming that most councillors based their Jan. 20 BWXT vote on facts.

It is evident that the one thing missing from the piece was a fact check.

Fact check - the concerns held by many CARN. members is that pelleting would be a new process in our community that, according to BWXT's own compliance reports, is more dangerous and more toxic for workers, the community, school kids and the environment.

Fact check - A BWXT spokesperson assured us in this paper that our future will be like that of the pelleting site in Toronto. Based on BWXT's latest (2018) compliance reports (yes, they self-monitor) this means residents of Peterborough can expect an exponential increase in releases of powdered uranium (a radioactive heavy metal) into our water and air. We can also expect massive quantities of highly flammable and explosive liquid hydrogen to be stored within steps of a kindergarten playground.

Fact Check - Port Hope serves as an important example, but not one of greatly improved oversight your editorial claimed. It took an environmental assessment by an independent body to properly define the magnitude of harm done to that community. The Port Hope clean up is currently expected to cost at least $1.3 Billion (yes, Billion) tax dollars to remove years of radioactive waste. The sand from their beach was moved to Chalk River for storage. All of that waste was left behind with the enthusiastic approval of the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).

Fact Check - The CNSC is well understood to be a captured regulator. Over its history it has never denied a nuclear license. In the one case that it tried, the director was fired, replaced and the licence then subsequently renewed. The regulator that your editorial author so enthusiastically trusts receives less than half of its budget from government. Who do you think pays the rest? As others have pointed out on these pages, that is the fox guarding a radioactive hen house.

Fact Check - As for your claim that council voted based on facts regarding BWXT, lets reveal a few more. In late November, Mayor Diane Therrien cited the need to "do more research" on the BWXT proposal before answering questions from Trent's student paper. She never replied. This week she was away for a conference. Councillor Kim Zippel declared a conflict of interest because her personal company consults with the nuclear industry. Given that council is eleven (11) members, and that the mayor was away, how do you report an 8-2 vote? Did Councillor Zippel vote despite her declared conflict? Or was the reported count wrong?

Fact Check - In a phone conversation Coun. Lesley Parnell told me she didn't think the city should be involved. She still managed to vote for BWXT. She then belittled my very real, fact-based concerns by saying "it's just pellets." Coun. Parnell, it is not just pellets - it is pelleting. Pelleting would be a new toxic process in our community. They are not the same. That's a fact. It's clear that some members of council don't know the difference.

Fact Check - We live in a city where the proposed expansion of a 'burger joint' is blocked by council because of insufficient parking, where chickens can not be kept on private property because they are a health risk to the city and where peanuts are banned by schools such as Prince of Wales because of their toxicity. And we live in a city where council supports radioactive uranium powder being transported along city streets into our downtown, processed and then released into Little Lake, and stored along with other toxins steps from that peanut-free playground.

Those are the facts.