[Note that P. Penna, one author of submission 085, contributed to submission 080.]
This submission presents itself as "A Case Study of Adult Education". If the nuclear industry were to publish such a biased account as "education" it would be rightly condemned by the churches. Much of it is concerned with uranium mining and nuclear weapons, with no explanation of the relevance to the current Panel. "Many presenters who opposed uranium mining at the hearings, criticized mining for imposing social/economic-technical structures that conflict with what they value." (p.15, para.4) suggests that uranium and nuclear energy are being used as surrogates for modern society.
In referring to the churches' boycott of the Bayda Inquiry the submission fails to point out that the reason given was that they could not find the time over a summer to prepare a submission: if they felt as strongly on this issue as they claim, and had already considered the issue, preparing a submission should have been possible. People generally find the time for what they consider important.
"Investment in nuclear power has served the economic and political interests of elites associated with scientific-military-industrial complexes in several countries while endangering populations through weapons buildups." (p.8, para.3) Perhaps, but this is not relevant to Canada. Similarly, the reference to "high cost electricity" is not relevant here.
"Technological developments are driven by elite interests with assistance of experts. ... decisions which reflect the interests of an elite rather than the common good." (p.10, para.1) Apparently "elite" and "experts" are dirty words in technology, but not in religion.
This submission depends to a large degree on statements by church leaders, and quotations from the Bible, that are apparently not open to question. Many of these are published in media that do not allow challenge or debate by those outside the religious community. By boycotting the Bayda Inquiry, for questionable reasons (see comments on 080 by one of the same authors), the churches avoided having to defend their position against challenges.
At several places it appears that opposition to nuclear energy is being used as a front for an attempt at social engineering: "we must change our life style and respect the integrity of our social institutions" (p.1, para.3.4) - are not these mutually contradictory?; "we are concerned about the kind of social development which would follow the nuclear power option." (p.7, para.II); "simplicity, moderation and discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a part of everyday life." (p.12, para.D.1); and "This panel is about the sovereignty and unity of Canada as much as it may be about AECL's nuclear fuel waste management and disposal concept." (p.14, para.E.2).
The submission is selective in citing "The Eleventh Hour" (p.6, para.1.a) without revealing the existence of the federal government's response to that report; or of "Nuclear Energy: Unmasking the Mystery" by another committee of Parliament the same year. The latter included: "maintaining the nuclear power option is vital to Canada's interests, as it is vital to to the interests of society in general." (p.3) and "The technical problems of radioactive waste management are not insurmountable:" (p.7).
The allegation that the only choice left to natives was "either to die from severe poverty or to die from radiation and other dangers associated with the only available jobs." (p.6, para.3.a) can only be characterized as unethical hyperbole.
| Go to Contents of Publications |