I
wanted to comment on one point, and I am afraid that I have to disagree with
you, Ben, and agree with Mr. Adams - although only because I see his
hypothetical situation as misleading.
Mr.
Adams suggested that people would choose to exchange coal power for nuclear
power if "in return all nuclear technology could be permanently withdrawn from
military use." I would not vote for that, because I feel that the risks to our
planet from expanded dependence on coal is even worse than the potential for
harm due to the existence of nuclear weapons, but most people probably do feel
differently and would accept that trade-off. Unfortunately, this presupposes a
false linkage. Eliminating nuclear power will, in my opinion, have absolutely
no effect on whether nuclear technology is part of the military of the world.
To a very great degree, nuclear power technology and nuclear weapons
technology aren't even the same technology. Certainly for me, after working
for over a decade in this industry I can say that I learned just about
everything I know which would apply to nuclear weapons in my general nuclear
physics courses in university - none of specialized knowledge I have developed
in the industry has any applicability to bomb development. And I believe that
it is much easier and cheaper for a state that wishes to develop nuclear
weapons to do so OUTSIDE of a "smokescreen" civilian nuclear power program
than within one.
Certainly
Energy Probe and other organizations have made some valid criticisms of AECL
and OH in the area of business practices. But, IMHO, this is because these
organizations have been poorly run. A valid criticism of bad business
practices should not be confused with a valid argument against use of a
particular way of pushing electrons around. I fact, I have often felt that one
of the reasons that OH got into such bad trouble was that the Candu design was
so solid and forgiving that bad management practices good go on for much
longer than would otherwise have been the case without the kind of ecological,
public health and/or worker health issues which would have accompanied similar
bad management practices in other heavy industries (e.g. petrochemical, coal,
steel, heavy manufacturing). OH had to wait until the financial implications
of its bad management caught up with it, instead of having problems in these
other areas also piling on. But I would rather have larger financial costs of
a problem than larger human or environmental ones. And the underlying problem
was that Ontario allowed OH to become a bureaucratic, politically-dominated
public utility instead of a well-run, relatively independent public utility
concentrating only on serving a prime mandate of reliable, efficient
electrical production. The real issue there had nothing to do with nuclear
power generation as a technology.
Patrick
Reid
-----Original
Message-----
From:
cdn-nucl-l-admin@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA
[mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of Rouben, Ben
Sent: February 4, 2002 1:32
PM
To: mclis_post
(E-mail)
Subject: FW:
[cdn-nucl-l] Request of dialogue between the nuclear industry and its
critics
Tom:
What kind of dialogue is
possible when you express opinions and anti-nuclear ideology as statements of
"fact"? I would beg to differ with many of your "assertions".
Here, I take exception to only a few of the many:
- "The Canadian public
should have little confidence that licensees will live up to their legal
obligation in taking security risks seriously..." - No, I don;t think
so. The licensees take all their legal and security obligations
extremely seriously.
- "Almost any rational
person would accept such a deal (nasty coal over nuclear). Certainly
not. I believe most rational people, if they think seriously about all
aspects of coal and nuclear in an objective manner, would choose
nuclear. It is the unreasoned fear and phobia that the anti-nuclear
propaganda has spread which makes those who do not put enough thinking into it
liable to choose coal.
- "...the ecological,
economic, and security disasters the nuclear industry has played such an
important role in creating". Quite the contrary. The nuclear
industry has produced a tremendous amount of wealth for Ontario and Canada,
has averted the emission of untold billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases and
other pollutants, and has had a safety record which no other industry in the
history of mankind has achieved. What more do you wnat? We should
all be extremely proud of the tremendous technological achievements [yes, I
know how much you love technology and would prefer to the "good old"
pre-technology "golden age"] which CANDU represents and of the benefits that
the nuclear industry has brought to this country.
What kind of dialogue is
possile?
[My opinions only.]
Benjamin
Rouben
Manager, Reactor Core
Physics
AECL Sheridan Park
Tel: 905-823-9060 x
4550
Fax: 905-822-0567
e-mail: roubenb@aecl.ca
<mailto:roubenb@aecl.ca>
Cell:
905-302-2054