[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: ANS President Eric Loewen on benefits of nuclear energy
I know, I know. A while back the CNA rep on Council at that time
(Colin Hunt I think) informed Council that all lobby groups had to
register as such with the government. Council decided (correctly I
think) that it, as a professional TECHNICAL society, was not a lobby
group. By the same token, the Professional Engineers of Ontario is
not a lobby / advocacy group and some years ago spun off the Ontario
Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) which has a specific mandate to
Yes there are a lot of groups out there that lobby against nuclear
power. As such their blatant bias reduces their credibility.
It is the tactic of playing into fear that has made them effective in
spite of their well known bias. We cannot in good conscience be so
self-serving and disingenuous. Anyway, we have no 'fear' card to
play. Our 'card' is reason and good sense, hampered as we are by
All that said, we CAN (and do) make public statements in favour of
nuclear. We should continue to do so. But there is a
difference between acting as professionals (getting the facts out,
presenting the pros and cons, addressing misconceptions, and so on) and
lobbying (trying to sell the pro-nuclear case to government officials).
There is good evidence that industry does NOT want the CNS to be a lobby
group. I would suspect that that is the case because industry does
not control what the CNS does or says and so is wary of possible loose
cannons speaking out in ways and times that might, inadvertently, subvert
industry strategies and tactics. Unfortunately for all of us on the
nuclear side, some of the big players on the industry side are prevented
by their political bosses from presenting a pro-nuclear case. The
CNA is making good headway in ramping up their outreach program and I
hope they succeed. In recent times the CNSC has been the most
proactive voice but that could very well come back to bite them as
I maintain - and I do not speak for the CNS - that the CNS can best serve
Nuclear Canada by being a place that anyone can turn to for an honest
And yes, that attitude does indeed explain a lot.
At 11:57 AM 11/10/2011, Andy English wrote:
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.
mailto:email@example.com.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of
Sent: October 11, 2011 9:56 AM
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: ANS President Eric Loewen on benefits of
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.
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._______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
Jeremy – can you put this on the Agenda for the next ECC meeting.
Organization of CANDU Industries
1730 McPherson Court, Unit #2
Pickering, ON L1W 3E6
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [
mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: October-09-11 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: ANS President Eric Loewen on benefits of nuclear
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
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Jerry Cuttler
I agree with what you are saying.
I suppose what the CNS says and does is not news worthy in Canada,
the Canadian media more anti-nuclear than the American media.
Should the CNS issue news releases?
On Oct 8, 12:26 pm, Steve Aplin
> I thought Ontario's energy minister Duguid was pretty good in the
> post-Fukushima period, saying Ontario won't drop nuclear and that
> family lives in the immediate Pickering area (so it's safe).
> In the election, I didn't hear any Liberal talk about nuclear, to
> 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
> 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
> person I met (and I worked the room like a politician), the solution
> energy problems is wind, solar, conservation, etc. Nuclear is a
> I go to Green Drinks events here in Ottawa, and always steer the
> toward nuclear. I see a lot of the same faces month after month. All
> disagree, now not all do.
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Jerry Cuttler
> > I listened to the TV news clip in the ANS Nuclear Cafe: ANS
> > Loewen on benefits of nuclear energy.****
> > It's very nice!****
> > Why doesn't this happen in Canada, especially in
> > What can we do to make it happen?****
> > Jerry****