RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Nuclear power proposal slammed in Ottawa

Morgan,

Interesting that you mention that "there has been an ongoing e-mail and write-in opportunity since Dec 9 (?) when the report was released."

A CBC report on the Ottawa hearings ( http://www.cbc.ca/ottawa/story/ot-energy20060214.html ) notes near the end that "The Ministry of Energy is also accepting feedback on its website," but it doesn't say that its been going on since early December of last year.

I guess that would have clashed with the report headline, "Energy consultations just 'lip service,' critics say," and May's sound bite, "Twelve cities in three days is not a public consultation or proper public process."

The same kind of line appears in the CBC report on the Toronto hearings, ( http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/to_nuclear20060214.html ) : "How can you decide on such a big amount in three days of consultation?" asked Jack Alawar. "It's outright ridiculous."

But again, the note at the end of the report, that "The Ministry of Energy is also accepting feedback on its website," doesn't say that its been going on since early December of last year. In this case it would have clashed with the report headline, "Consultation too short, nuclear critics say."

As for May's & her colleagues' performance at the hearings, they are clearly deserving of the annual "Order of Rude Canada" prize.

Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of Brown, Morgan
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 3:43 PM
To: 'Cdn-Nucl-LISTSERV (E-mail)'
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Nuclear power proposal slammed in Ottawa

A few of us went to Ottawa to the Ministry of Ottawa hearings. As Jeremy noted, Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club (?) leapt to the mike and interrupted the chair right off the bat, saying that an environmental assessment was the only way to have sufficient time to speak. She evidently forgot that there has been an ongoing e-mail and write-in opportunity since Dec 9 (?) when the report was released. Ms May addressed the crowd (strongly partisan, or at least noisy, in favour of conservation [who wouldn't be] and anti-nuclear) to applause. A real soap box opportunity. She interrupted the process again later, with the same comments.

The deputy leader of the Green party said that the Ont gov't doesn't have a hierarchy for the OPA plan (though the plan does!), and wanted the order of: conservation, then renewables, then "clean" fossil if necessary, but absolutely no nuclear. He said there is "no such thing as clean nuclear".

When a woman got up and spoke in favour of nuclear (she mentioned medical isotopes), John Bennett (I think) of the Sierra Club told her to "shut up" because she was "telling lies". Someone nearby said "She must be paid by the nuclear industry". These comments reiterated an earlier comment that the video produced by Donna Cansfield's ministry was flawed and full of misrepresentations (the video spelled out the needs, and the multi-faceted approach to Ont's electricity future). I thought it was very telling that people who, interspersed with their arguments, had been calling for democracy (i.e., saying these public consultations weren't democratic) were unwilling to allow anyone to speak who might be pro-nuclear.

Near the end a math prof expressed his deep concerns about the world his grandchildren faced, where they might be asphyxiated with pollution. Then he said his conclusion was the need for more nuclear.

I didn't speak at the microphone, I'm afraid, but I did pass some info on CANDU reliability to Ministry officials (and expressed my thanks to them for holding the forum). I (and the others) got into discussions with individuals, which was much more tame and worth the effort.

It was worthwhile attending, though it was a bit depressing to see some of the antics. I empathize with people who are concerned with the fate of the planet (that's why I'm in the nuclear field in the first place), but have a hard time reconciling emotional comments and abuse of the forum chair with a cohesive rational process.

sigh

Morgan