[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Archive Top]
Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Walrus CANDU
Bill,
I'm extremely pleased that you found the time to talk to Paul...I'm even more excited that he was receptive... while you modestly concede that maybe it didn't influence the article I'd actually be quite surprised if it didn't...
The January February 2006 edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
So, thanks Bill... and thanks to Paul for listening!
I'd also like to point out that the usual media "one-sided-story" doesn't originate solely from a holier than though attitude on behalf of the pro side... if I were a journalist I know
it's a hell of alot easier to find someone to talk to on the anti side!!! You don't even have to look since they shout it from their own ivory towers!
Is it really a surprise? I myself haven't written a letter to the editor in almost a year! It wasn't worth the hasseling I got every single time from my own company!
So, I stopped. (My employee engagement went down about 20 percentage points as well...bet they didn't forsee that consequence)
As a matter of fact I wrote a rebuttal to Websters bulletin article that attempted to put some of his statements into a proper context but I never did submit it...
and...on a related note... ( a fact I was unsure of in my rebuttal) Are India's CANDU's safeguarded by IAEA?
Thanks (long time no type)
Andrew
Bill Garland <garlandw@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
Andy,
Thanks for the vote of support. I have my wife to thank for congealing that thought in my mind. As a non-Catholic Social Worker dealing with unmarried young pregnant Catholic girls, the issue of 'to abort or not' naturally came up with all its religious implications. My wife's very wise strategy was to make sure that the client had all the information presented in a balanced manner and that the client was supported fully throughout the decision making process and beyond. The young girl was empowered to make the decision - and rightly so, given that it was her life and her child's life that was on the table. It is no less so for nuclear power. Our client, in this case, is the public community.
Bill
At 09:02
AM 05/09/2006, Andy wrote:
"It seems that working with reporters to help them understand the issues - as opposed to just telling them answers - is the empowering way to go."......
And that, Bill, pretty much sums up the Canadian nuclear industry's biggest problem. The most vocal of us tend to treat people as if they were idiots, telling them that they should listen to us because we are so smart and they aren't. You catch more flies with honey than you do with sh*t!
If we are going to succeed, your approach is the way to go.
Cheers,
Andy
----- Original Message -----
- From: Bill Garland
- To: Nuclear
- Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:54 AM
- Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Walrus CANDU
- The author and I had a few sessions together as he was researching for that article. He is a few years out of school (ie young compared to me) and seems to have an open mind. Nice fellow. We chatted extensively about technical issues, and the history and politics of CANDU. None of what we chatted about was in the article but I think the chats helped him understand the issues in a more balanced perspective. Perhaps he would have written the same article without the chats. It reminds me of the conversations I had with a reporter from Hamilton 12 years ago when the McMaster reactor has issues. It seems that working with reporters to help them understand the issues - as opposed to just telling them answers - is the empowering way to
go. Clair Ripley and David Mosey found the same thing, as I recall. I am a big fan of helping others to think as opposed to telling them what to think.
- This is off your point, Randal, hope you don't mind.
- Bill
- At 12:30 AM 05/09/2006, Randal Leavitt wrote:
- "The Walrus" - my favourite Magazine, and it's Canadian too.
- In "The Walrus", September 2006 Volume 3 Issue 7
- Will CANDU Do?
- by Paul Webster
- The article ends with this statement:
- "If the competition wins out, a question will remain: should the CANDU
- be romanticized like the Avro Arrow as a technological triumph that
- should never have been abandoned, or pilloried as the most expensive
- mistake in the nation's history?"
- I have been writing about this question for a couple of years now, and
- still don't know
the answer. If Ontario abandons the CANDU then 30,000
- jobs go down the tubes, but we perhaps get more standardized in our
- electricity generation technology. If we keep the jobs, do we also get
- an albatross hung around our necks? It is a fiendishly difficult
- decision. I would like to see the Canadian technology continue, and I
- also liked the Arrow, but the wind seems to be blowing the other way.
- The Paul Webster article is worth reading. I got all the way through it
- without exploding. It portrays the Canadian CANDU dilemma in fairly
- clear terms.
- --
- Randal Leavitt ---------- gnupg public key: bbbad04d
- http://positiveenergy.blogspot.com/
- http://www.simpy.com/user/randalleavitt/links
- _______________________________________________
- cdn-nucl-l mailing list
- cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
- http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
- Bill Garland, Executive Director of UNENE and Professor, Dept. of Engineering Physics, Bldg. NRB 117, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA L8S 4L7, Tel: (905)525-9140 x24925 Fax: (905)528-4339 Email: garlandw@mcmaster.ca
- Web:
< www.nuceng.ca> < http://canteach.candu.org> <www.unene.ca>