[Date Prev][Date Next]
FW: [cdn-nucl-l] Anti-nuclear nonsense, and a response
Excellent riposte, Morgan!
Benjamin Rouben, FCNS
Manager, Reactor Core Physics Branch
Tel: 905-823-9060 ext. 4550
From: Brown, Morgan [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday February 12, 2001 3:29 PM
To: cdn-nucl-l (E-mail)
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Anti-nuclear nonsense, and a response
That was an interesting article Jerry Cuttler sent, on Brazil's nuclear
industry hitting out at Greenpeace. It's time we took the bull ($%#!) by
the horns as well. In the Feb 9 2001 Toronto Sun was an article describing
Sierra Club's derision of AECL and its efforts to sell reactors worldwide:
Watchdog rips CANDU sales to Asia
By STEPHANIE RUBEC OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA -- Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is nothing better than a lowly drug
pusher and shouldn't be allowed to peddle nuclear reactors on the Team
Canada trade mission to China, an environmental watchdog says.
Sierra Club of Canada members are angry that the agency is sending two
representatives on the 10-day tour of China on the taxpayer's dime, costing
$19,000 in air fare and ground transportation and another $10,000-or-so for
hotels and meals.
"AECL is like a drug pusher going to the developing world, trying to sell
technology which is no longer being actively supported in the developing
world," Sierra Club spokesman Dave Martin said. "I think it's shameful
Canadian taxpayers are paying to promote nuclear technology in the
Here's my response (unpublished as yet):
To the Editor
You are doing a disservice to your readership, by describing the Sierra Club
as an environmental watchdog ("Watchdog rips CANDU sales to Asia", Feb 9
2001). A watchdog is an objective organization that has bark and bite, and
uses them when necessary to protect the interests of its owners. The
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, formerly the Atomic Energy Control
Board, is such a watchdog organization, protecting its owners - us. The
CNSC has the expertise, the experience and the power to regulate Canadian
nuclear science and technology, from reactors to medical isotopes. It is
given its mandate under law - the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
Organizations like the Sierra Club have no jurisdiction, and no
responsibility. Its spokesman said "AECL is like a drug pusher going to the
developing world, trying to sell technology which is no longer being
actively supported in the developing world". The technology - nuclear power
reactors - is licensable in Canada and has been doggedly and safely
providing a lot of electricity in Canada for 39 years. Canadian CANDU
reactors have delivered the equivalent of three times Canada's annual
electricity generation to our own electrical grids. Not to mention the
electricity safely generated by another 9 CANDU reactors around the world.
In 2000, 433 reactors worldwide produced a record 2.54 trillion
kilowatt-hours, about 16% of the world's electricity requirements.
If we are benefitting from this technology, why not offer it for sale
abroad? The developing world is rapidly electrifying, depending primarily
on fossil fuel power. Why deny other countries a tested and true technology
that can cleanly and safely deliver electricity without using the
environment as a sewer? In December 2000, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change released a report with even greater predictions of
human-induced climate change than had been predited before. Does the Sierra
Club, by protesting nuclear technologies, want increased air pollution?
Nuclear reactor technology is being very actively supported, here and in
many nations: Finland is seriously considering a fifth reactor and its
government approved proceeding with a final waste repository; an American
company is in partnership with South Africa to develop a new reactor design
and wants to build one in the USA; globally, seven power reactors came on
line last year, and another 30 are under construction. Developing nuclear
power is a moral imperative, according to recent statements by Jim Adam,
chair of the World Energy Council. He also said that abandoning new nuclear
power development makes reducing greenhouse gas emissions more difficult.
The Sierra Club spokesman attempted to insult me and my fellow employees at
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. He used a silly metaphor rather than facts
to support his allegation, reflecting his employment for an anti-nuclear
club stuck in the rhetoric and dogma of the 1970's.
Morgan Brown, P.Eng.
w:(204) 753-8424 extn 3265
cdn-nucl-l mailing list