[Date Prev][Date Next]
[cdn-nucl-l] Taking the bull by the horns
Very good letter, Morgan! I hope they publish it.
Who exactly is/are "we" taking the bull by the horns? The equivalent
organization in Canada would be the CNA.
If the CNA were to take on such a campaign, it would be useful to speak with
the Brazilian Nuclear Energy Association (ABEN) to understand exactly how
they did it* and then develop an appropriate strategy to do it here. Then
the CNA would need to assign good people and the necessary funds to attack
the rascals skilfully, without mercy, using facts and good science. It
would take a few years to win.
With the costs of energy rising, isn't it time to start to play the game
with our own rules? We don't have to play a fool's game with their rules.
* The director of the Brazilian Nuclear Energy Association, nuclear
engineer Guilherme Camargo, tells the fascinating story of how the truth won
out over Greenpeace's lies, in an interview with Dr. Jonathan Tennenbaum
which will appear in a future issue of 21st Century Science & Technology
----- Original Message -----
From: Brown, Morgan <email@example.com>
To: cdn-nucl-l (E-mail) <firstname.lastname@example.org.McMaster.CA>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:27 PM
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
> 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,
> $19,000 in air fare and ground transportation and another $10,000-or-so
> 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
> developing world."
> Here's my response (unpublished as yet):
> To the Editor
> Toronto Sun
> You are doing a disservice to your readership, by describing the Sierra
> as an environmental watchdog ("Watchdog rips CANDU sales to Asia", Feb 9
> 2001). A watchdog is an objective organization that has bark and bite,
> 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
> developing world, trying to sell technology which is no longer being
> actively supported in the developing world". The technology - nuclear
> 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
> that can cleanly and safely deliver electricity without using the
> environment as a sewer? In December 2000, the UN Intergovernmental Panel
> Climate Change released a report with even greater predictions of
> human-induced climate change than had been predited before. Does the
> 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
> 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
> power development makes reducing greenhouse gas emissions more difficult.
> The Sierra Club spokesman attempted to insult me and my fellow employees
> Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. He used a silly metaphor rather than
> 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.
> Pinawa, Manitoba
> w:(204) 753-8424 extn 3265
> cdn-nucl-l mailing list