Last Saturday night Dr. Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (http://www.ccnr.org/) kept a large crowd at the Catholic Conference Centre spellbound as he described the history of atomic energy, explained how nuclear power plants work, outlined concerns about uranium production, radiation, waste storage and disposal, and then answered questions and responded to comments.
Most people stayed until he finished speaking at 11:00 and there was a line-up to talk with him afterwards. The next morning, there were around 100 people at the pancake breakfast in Grimshaw and the discussion was apparently again lively.
People in the area are taking advantage of opportunities to learn about the issue from the variety of options, such as Energy Alberta's open houses, sessions put on by the Peace River Environmental Society, and, judging by comments made on Saturday, extensive use of resources available online.
Nuclear power is a rather large departure from the way Alberta currently generates electricity. Where is the provincial government in this discussion with public education and consultation and a full debate in the legislature? Where is the evidence that we actually need to generate this power? What effort has the province taken to reduce demand for electricity? Has enough help been given to alternative technologies? I have many questions!
2 comments:
Leslie:
It is nice to see a blog about Peace River and issues dealing with the Town. I too was at the talk given by Gordon Edwards. He is a good speaker, but the problem was that took a number of half truths and added his anti-nuclear basis.
For example, he brought up the point that the US Academy of Sciences published a report that even low doses of radiation are associated with cancer risks and then proceeded to show a picture of a fellow who was involved in a clean-up accident at Chalk River who was diagnosed with cancer, as if this proves his point. Would it be valid if I showed a picture of former President Carter, who was involved in the same clean-up, in all his current vim and vigour and claim that radiation has no effect? No, and Edwards as an educated person should refrain from sleight-of-tongue tricks, because it distorts the debate.
But, to continue on the Academy of Sciences report on radiation, the Academy was not stating something new when it said that low doses of radiation have a cancer risk. What they were doing was upholding the linear non-threshold model(LNT) of radiation. Their view was that the proponnents of the radiation hormesis theory had not provided sufficient evidence for them to abandon the LNT model.
You should be aware that France's Academie des Sciences and Academie Nationale de Medecine released a report at roughly the same time(March 2005) stating that the use of the LNT model/theory overestimated the risks of the small amounts of radiation. The academies felt that this could have a deterimental effect on public health by discouraging doctors and patients from performing/taking important radiological exams such as mammography or chest x-rays. Their interpretation of the data led them to conclude that very low doses have either: 1) effects far below what the LNT model/theory suggests; or 2) no harmful effects at all. Why didn't Edwards mention, at a minimum, that there is a debate in the scientific community about the effects of low doses of radiation, but that his view is .... Do you think he has an ideology, an anti-nuclear one, or is he pathologically disingenuous? The scientific debate on low radiation doses is whether the risk is really low or really, really low. And, make no mistake about it the radiation in the environs around a nuclear plant is in the low dose region.
I would very much be interested in hearing what you thought Edwards' said that resonated with you, because from what I heard and saw he was not forthcoming with the entire story and I would love the opportunity to correct the record.
I certainly hope members of our local anti-nuclear group read your blog, because I would like to tell them that photocopied newspaper articles do not constitute a presentation of the facts or the evidence. The term "newspaper science" that is generally used to describe this practice is a derogatory term not a complimentary one.
Go Green,Go Atomic.
TT
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Tom. Dr. Edwards certainly holds an anti-nuclear ideology, and said as much at the start of the presentation, but I appreciated that for the most part, he held that in check and tried to be fair in his presentation. But I do think that some of his slides need to be updated and that he needs to ensure he maintains more of a scientific perspective.
He mentioned the Swedish referendum on nuclear power and when I looked into that further, found out it happened in 1980--a generation ago--and that the decision to shut down nuclear plants has been controversial. According to a couple of sources, 3 of their 10 plants were shut down in 2006 due to safety concerns.It seems the debate is still going on in that country and that it may get more heated by 2010 when the moratorium on nuclear comes to an end.
While I think the provincial government needs to initiate a discussion about whether nuclear power has a place in Alberta's energy future,in terms of the debate in the Peace Country, I would really like to see NADC go ahead with their proposed symposium. It sounds as though that may require some pressure on the provincial government, however.
Post a Comment