By Prof. Duane Bratt
Here are my impressions of the debate.
There were lots of people at the event. Very respectful crowd and a mix or
pro, anti, and agnostic. There were no audience interruptions, although
Pat McNamara was deeply agitated everytime I spoke. A strong moderator
really helped. Lots of local media and politicians. A s
What were the benefits of doing this?
The pro (non-industry) side
appeared. This increased the crowd size and
also allowed some pros and
undecideds to appear without fear.
Did we change minds? Probably not, but I
think we raised some doubts on
the anti-arguments. I also think that
Caldicott's performance also raised
some doubts in the antis mind due to
some really over the top comments on
radiation and cancer (which I will
discuss later).
What if we didn't show? Then it become a revival meeting led
by the patron
saint of anti-nuclearism. A smaller crowd that would leave
more energized
to fight nuclear power. It would also show that the nuclear
industry is
secretive and trying to do things behind the scenes.
The DVD will reveal the entirety of the debate (more of a competing
information sharing session). This is not a blow by blow account, but
rather my impressions and strategy..
My preliminary comments was to
establish some common ground with
Caldicott: 1) neither of us work for (or
have worked for) the nuclear
industry; 2) we are both lay people (medical
doctor and political
science); 3) both of us have dedicated much of our
adult life to the study
of the nuclear sector; 4) both of us oppose nuclear
weapons (I made a
point of publicly acknowledging and congratulating
Caldicott's work in
this area - I avoided some of my deep reservations about
her crusade). I
would use this strategy throughout the debate. For example,
agreeing on
the danger of climate change and the problems of coal.
My
next step was to state that I was not there to advocate a specific
project
or discuss the business case for a nuclear reactor in Peace River
- that is
Bruce Power's job. My goal is to highlight the advantages of
nuclear power
and make explicit comparisons with other electricity
sources. All
electricity sources have pros and cons, and nuclear should be
part of the
mix (I tried to make a joke later that there will be no
perfect energy
source until we find dilithium crystals but nobody got my
Star Trek
reference!).
I cited Mohamed ElBarade's 2005 Nobel Prize speech. IAEA has a
dual
mandate: oppose nuclear weapons, but support nuclear power. Atoms for
Peace. This is my own position.
Advantages: Supplier of base load
electricity, Climate Change, Nuclear is
Safe.
Pre-empted possible
attacks by responding to issues of nuclear waste,
radiation levels, weapons,
conservation/efficiency, Global nuclear revival
(especially the European
scene).
Rebuttal. I think this was my best part. I had 7 minutes and went
after
four points: 1) earthquakes. I referenced Fact Sheet 9, mentioned the
earthquakes that hit Japan and Point Lepreau. Maintained that this would
be a feature of the EA process (I spent a lot of time over the evening
emphasizing the EA process); 2) Chernobyl - repeated again that this could
NEVER happen in Canada (reactor design - no containment - lack of
regulation, Soviet political culture, etc); 3) The amount of concrete and
cement (creating GHGs) of reactors was one of Caldicott's key points - I
pointed out that is what windmills are made of. It takes hundreds of
windmills to equal the power output of a reactor; 4) Radiation. This was
the longest part of Caldicott's presentation. Here were some of her quotes
that I dissected: "No safe level of radiation" - what about natural
radiation? "Medical industry is the biggest source of radiation" - so we
should shut down medicine? "Cancer does not carry an ID" - why then do you
attribute most cancer to nuclear radiation? I went on to ask about
comparable cancer rates of coal, oil, and gas. What about nuclear workers?
Why would they put themselves in danger (a point I came back to a lot).
Her response was that it was children that were most vulnerable - a
logical conclusion was that nuclear workers don't care about the heath of
their children!
Q and A was handled well with written statements. It
took the emotion out
and prevented speeches. Each of us was given 5
questions. In my
self-analysis, this was the weakest part of my performance.
The problem is
that I would answer the question directed at me, but then
Caldicott would
jump in. I didn't want to turn it into a back and forth
between us, so I
rarely intervened again (an exception was when she said
that the world is
running our of uranium. Think of the twist on an old joke:
uranium is bad
and there is not enough ot it. I don't know if this was a
mistake from the
audience's point of view. What I do know is that she spoke
a lot more
during the Q and A then I did. A second aspect of the Q and A was
around a
tactical decision I had made in advance around a specific question.
The
very first question was a repeat of McNamara's Edmonton Journal letter.
I
knew it was coming and was prepared. The problem was Bruce Power had
given me a copy of their response (not yet publicly available). I felt
that I could not have used it without linking me closely with Bruce Power
(something I was consciously avoiding). So I made reference to the CNSC
report and said that Bruce Power's website contained emission information,
but I could not comment what they have been saying in Peace River because
I was not there. I should add that one individual was convinced that Bruce
Power (or AECL, or somebody) was paying me. Speakers fees, research
funding, junkets (Peace River is a junket??), etc. Absolutely not the
case.
Caldicott went into great detail on radiation - showing off her
medical
background. I think she might have lost some people with the level
of
detail. I also think she scared people. That was her strategy, but her
great exaggerated led, in my estimation, to turning some people off. For
example, don't eat Hershey chocolate because it will kill you (Hershey has
plants close to TMI). None of the food in Europe is safe (because of
Chernobyl). The inherent dangers of nuclear radiation causing cancer and
death was repeated over and over again. I responded with a question; If
radiation and cancer are caused by nuclear power, and we have had it for
decades, then why is life expectancy continuing to rise?
Caldicott was
also very weak on Canada. So I used lots of Canadian
references:
decommissioning of Gentilly 1 and some of the early research
reactors. There
is lots of farmland surrounding the Bruce plants in
Ontario. The strongest
support for nuclear power is where it exists: Bruce
County, Durham Region,
Saint John. There was very little response from
Caldicott when I went into
the Canadian detail because she doesn't have
the knowledge base.
Funniest quote of the evening "Rudd is a worse Prime Minister than
Howard!" This is because Rudd has ramped up the coal industry with exports
to China. Could it be because of his anti-uranium policy that they have
turned to coal exports???
When you watch the DVD I am sure that I will be criticized for not going
after her on the deep technical stuff. That is not my forte. I focused on
communicating with logic and examples. Caldicott is a formidable opponent.
For the pro-nuclear side, she is much more dangerous than a Gordon
Edwards. She has automatic respect (due to her career) before she even
started (I am an unknown). She plays to her strengths as a medical doctor
(doctors are respected). Who can hate a children's doctor! She appears as
a kindly grandmother (which in person she is) who is deeply committed to
the cause (which she is - we may discuss - but she is a true believer).
Anyway those are my thoughts. The rest, as football coaches say, is on the
tape.
Duane
Duane Bratt, Ph.D
Associate Professor
Department of Policy Studies
Mount Royal University
4825 Mount Royal Gate SW
Calgary, AB, Canada
T3E-6K6
Tel: (403) 440-6540
Fax: (403) 440-6815
-----------------------------