RE: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: ANS President Eric Loewen on benefits of nuclear energy

[Bill Garland <garlandw@mcmaster.ca>]

Andy, 

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
advocate.  

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
being professionals.

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
regulators.  

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
answer.   

And yes, that attitude does indeed explain a lot.

Bill

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.
 
Cheers,
 
Andy
 

---

From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [ mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of Bill Garland
Sent: October 11, 2011 9:56 AM
To: nuclear_education_outreach@googlegroups.com; cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: ANS President Eric Loewen on benefits of nuclear energy

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