SIB · Monday March 30, 2009
Very biased and one sided tale. Sounds “FARE” to me…. Try telling both sides of the story, yours and the truth.

ghc · Tuesday March 31, 2009
SIB,
Cameco’s admission that there are two sides to the story is a step in the right direction, but they might better be described as ‘FARE’ and ‘UNFAIR,’ or true and false, respectively.
Since the ‘free press’ and broadcast media became corporate captives they promote only the UNFAIR, false or nuclear industry side, all else is denigrated or ignored.
And the much-abused people of Port Hope who live in Cameco’s shadow are regularly subjected to ‘The Community Forum,’ a slanted, biased Cameco propaganda pamphlet filled with self-serving disinformation.
Views dissenting from government and nuclear industry spin exist, and should be made available.
Even wealthy Cameco can’t fool all the people all the time, and you can’t buy everybody off.
Cameco delenda est.

SIB · Tuesday March 31, 2009
One must put forward facts without personal biased. The “media” emits any garbage any so called “expert” will dish out to slander the nuclear industry. Its shock value earns good money. The indusrty went through a sharp learning curve and lessons have been learned, and will continue to be learned. But for you to state the the Government, and the industry did these things with malice and ilintent is borderline slander. It is obvious from your lovely latin quote, you view is one sided, and misinformed, and will remain so. Unfortunate.

ghc · Tuesday March 31, 2009
I’ve read all the PR humbuggery put forward, ad nauseum, by Cameco hirelings in letters to the editor in the ‘local’ paper and elsewhere. It only confirms my belief that you cannot believe the rubbish a soulless corporation offers in its own defence. I would expect more of the same from Cameco trolls.
‘Experts’ say what they’re paid to say.
The nuclear industry is an obscenity. The only things certain to come from it are huge profits for its stockholders, and particularly its managers; huge government subsidies to the industry, tax-payer money that would be better spent on social programs; mountains of radioactive waste that no one knows how to dispose of safely.
It’s hard not to be cynical about such a cynical outfit as Cameco.
The implied threat was a nice touch. How like.
Cameco delenda est.

SIB · Tuesday March 31, 2009
Your opinion is just that, your opinion. It is worth no more or no less than mine. Support for nuclear is at an all time high, that you cannot argue. That is in no small part because of individuals like yourself. With a one sided agenda full of misinformation and fear mongering. The average person can see right through these lies. I believe the intent of this website was to pass on the history of Port Hope, not to slander the nuclear industry. Another futile attempt to sling mud where few will look, and nobody cares. Oh and by the way, your computer is running on over 50% nuclear power, better fire up the wind mill and unplug from the grid. Nuclear is here to stay. Tax payer money spent on power production is more important than social programs, no matter what form of power. Social programs cannot run without power. So lets buils a new coal plant a week like China, and emit more radiation than all nukes in the world combined. Carbon dioxide and global warming thank your narrow mind.

ghc · Wednesday April 1, 2009
I don’t know that support for nuclear energy is high among people who have sought out information on the alternatives, or if it’s high at all. But I wish I had a hundred dollars for every million the nuclear industry has spent promoting itself and mocking alternative energy sources.
It’s not necessary to sling mud at the nuclear industry, it’s a dirty business that doesn’t clean up after itself. Having polluted wherever it’s gone, to any but an eye blinded by well-paid partiality, Cameco is going to look bad.
Both coal and nuclear are disastrous for the environment. What’s going to be done with the inevitable nuclear waste?
Eldorado/Cameco is a sad and dark, and ongoing, part of Port Hope’s history, its detrimental effects are too important to ignore.
It’s disgraceful that Cameco is being allowed to build again in the heart of a town on the shore of a lake at the side of a river where it has no ethical right to be.
Cameco delenda est.

Bob Fitzsimmons · Tuesday April 28, 2009
Some very interesting reading. Thks for the sites and the McNamara pieces.
I do wonder if SIB lived/lives in Port Hope. Reading about what I saw in the 50’s as a kid being built/trucked etc. must be just a very tiny part of this “Story”

ghc · Tuesday April 28, 2009
The nuclear ecocide in Port Hope is criminal, but the 'powers that be' in this town think it a greater offence to say so.
Pro-nuclear information, or misinformation, is everywhere. The opposing view is hard to find, so I’m glad to give people a chance to see what Pat McNamara has to say.
The nuclear industry and its apologists are loathe to let any criticism go unremarked.
SIB works for Cameco.

Nazim Khan · Saturday May 8, 2010
The name of the town and the deeds of the governament ,do not go hand in hand.someone please suggest a new name to this town i fell in love with to the extent that i decided to move here from montreal while i was driving back from toronto a week ago.until i found this article(as i was trying to understand and know the town before i made a move.and…….ooooops all my planes came to a sudden halt.and i asked myself…..would i be willing to live on a pile of nuclear waste for the rest of my life……the answer was simple……
I must say port hope has not been treated fairly. i wonder what on earth have the people of port hope have done to deserve this. thus someone please change the name of this town to DE PORT HOPES.

morris · Thursday November 11, 2010
i personally knew this man , he was a idiot and had only one plan , to destroy port hope . he tried to tear down everything the town held dear . when they were thinking about closing powers pat was always seen at the head of the group with his one sided biased comments . anyone who reads this and believes even in part , you are not a port hopeain and we are glad to say that.

Derek · Tuesday December 6, 2011
Wow. This is an incredible piece of work: a very telling uncovering of facts. The author’s interpretation is almost not needed: the facts speak for themselves, and are terribly concerning, regardless of motive.





Mary Fish · Thursday December 15, 2011

Hey there! My name is Mary Fish. Long time anti nuke folk. Just adding this to your comments which I hope you read. Nothing big just a little piece of supporting info. http://inmiownmind.blogspot.com/2008/11/conversation-overheard-on-queen-street.html

Name