[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Archive Top]
RE: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: ANS President Eric Loewen on benefits of nuclear energy
I am utterly amazed that the CNS considers making public
statements in favour of nuclear power to be lobbying!! In any case
what's wrong with lobbying FOR nuclear power? There are a lot of groups
out there, we all know who they are, who lobby AGAINST nuclear power. The
public is being inundated with misinformation by authors with PhD attached, and
when these arguments are not strongly refuted by authors with PhD attached...
well, you know what happens. And the CNS is worried about being perceived
as a professional society??? C'mon.. That attitude explains a
lot.
Cheers,
Andy
I am not saying that this important issue should not be
discussed at CNS council but you should be aware that it has been on the agenda
a few times in the past and nothing of note was achieved (as far as I
know). We are not a lobby group and in my opinion should not be a lobby
group. Stealing from some words I have written to some CNS Council members
in the past on this matter, one of the problems we keep coming up against in the
CNS is with making public statements. We do not need to be concerned if we
make NPOV statements (neutral point of view). If we, as professionals, are
explaining something technical, we do not require the blessing of the CNS any
more than explaining fission requires a CNS policy statement. As long as
CNS reps stick to the facts, no policy statements are required. It seems
to me that the degree to which we have 'approved' CNS position statements is the
degree to which such statements are not fact based. But I can think of two
policy statements that I would endorse: A policy that commits us to be factual
and balanced, and a policy that commits us to encourage others to think about
the facts in a balanced way. These are policy statements that are, I
suppose, strategic statements in that they are the basis of being perceived as a
trustworthy, credible society - in short, a professional society.
If we
stick to those policies perhaps we can get past the impasses that prevented us
in the past from issuing CNS statements on current issues. If we don't set
down wise policies we will just waste time at Council talking and getting
nowhere.
Bill
At 10:41 AM 11/10/2011, Ron Oberth wrote:
Dear CNS Nuclear Education and
Outreach Team: The CNS Education and Communications Committee (ECC)
would be the ideal group to coordinate and manage op-eds by CNS Members with
scientific credibility.
Jeremy – can you put this on the
Agenda for the next ECC meeting.
Ron
Oberth
President
Organization of CANDU Industries
PHONE:
905-839-0073
CELL: 647-407-6081
EMAIL: ron.oberth@oci-aic.org
1730
McPherson Court, Unit #2
Pickering, ON L1W 3E6
From:
nuclear_education_outreach@googlegroups.com [
mailto:nuclear_education_outreach@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Steve Aplin
Sent: October-09-11 4:14 PM
To:
nuclear_education_outreach@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: ANS
President Eric Loewen on benefits of nuclear energy
Maybe
individual CNS members should write releases and especially op-eds -- when the
author's name comes with PhD attached, that adds a lot of weight. Maybe the
CNS should provide support for this -- e.g. an "op-ed committee" that
collaborates with expert members in writing high quality, professional pieces
for submission.
Noticing how frequently anti-nukes get their
op-eds into the Toronto Star makes me wonder if Canadian media are more
anti-nuclear than U.S. media. The Star is the biggest paper in Canada
because the 416 is the biggest media market in Canada, and the Star dominates
that market.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Jerry Cuttler <jerrycuttler@rogers.com >
wrote:
Steve
I agree with what you are saying.
I suppose what the CNS
says and does is not news worthy in Canada, or
the Canadian media more
anti-nuclear than the American media.
Should the CNS issue news
releases?
Jerry
On Oct 8, 12:26 pm, Steve Aplin <aplin.st...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I thought Ontario's energy minister Duguid was pretty good in
the early
> post-Fukushima period, saying Ontario won't drop nuclear and
that his entire
> family lives in the immediate Pickering area (so it's
safe).
>
> In the election, I didn't hear any Liberal talk about
nuclear, to which I
> attribute their desire to win 416 seats. The
"green" lobby's energy platform
> plays well in 416 and atomic power
ain't part of that platform.
>
> The Liberals won their minority
because of 416. Notice McGuinty harped on
> the Green Act
incessantly.
>
> Whatever outreach drive happens, it has to focus
on 416.
>
> I went to a Green Drinks event on The Esplanade a year
ago. For every last
> person I met (and I worked the room like a
politician), the solution to
> energy problems is wind, solar,
conservation, etc. Nuclear is a dirty word.
>
> I go to Green
Drinks events here in Ottawa, and always steer the discussion
> toward
nuclear. I see a lot of the same faces month after month. All used to
>
disagree, now not all do.
>
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:38 AM,
Jerry Cuttler <jerrycutt...@rogers.com
>wrote:
>
** **
>
> > I listened to the TV news
clip in the ANS Nuclear Cafe: ANS President Eric
> > Loewen on
benefits of nuclear energy.****
>
> > It's very
nice!****
> > Why doesn't this happen in Canada, especially in
Ontario?****
> > What can we do to make it happen?****
> >
Jerry****
_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l