[Note that P. Timmerman, author of submission 043, acted as consultant for this submission.]
At first I welcomed this submission as an opportunity to understand why critics of nuclear energy considered it unethical. However, I soon found so many distortions and omissions of relevant facts that I became highly critical of the critics. Furthermore, it is profoundly offensive in its numerous unsubstantiated allegations against nuclear energy and those who are responsible for it. Either the bias was deliberate or it was unconscious, out of ignorance. If the former, the authors were unethical by their own standards ("It is unethical to arrive at any conclusion based upon the exclusion of the necessary evidence" p.3-9, para.3); if the latter they were not competent to draw conclusions affecting the health, economy and environment of Canadians.
"... the health, not only of humans but of the planet itself and everything that subsists in it, is involved." (p.1-1, para.1) is hyperbole approaching scare-mongering.
This (para.2) may have been the motivation for civilian nuclear energy in the US - more likely it was commercial profit - but in Canada it was simply to make Ontario less dependent on US coal at competitive costs.
For a church publication to claim (para.3) that there was not "any critical assessment of consequences, such as nuclear proliferation for military purposes, health dangers connected with mining and nuclear power generation, the hazardous drive to a plutonium economy, risks of terrorism, and finally, the unsolved and perhaps unsolvable matter of the waste." indicates either a lack of adequate research or a lack of ethics. Either interpretation casts doubt on the rest of the submission.
"Not only is there no safe solution 'at the moment,' there may never be." (para.6) indicates that the authors have made up their minds and are unwilling to accept the Panel's findings.
"... the most toxic substances ever created, some with a half-life longer than all recorded history hitherto." (p.1-2, para.2) is misleading in failing to mention that this applies to only a small fraction of the wastes; that the plutonium, to which this presumably refers, has toxicity comparable to that of radium, created by nature and present in all soil, water, etc.; and that the external radiation hazard from plutonium is negligible.
"... it launches us upon an incalculable, potentially catastrophic, and possibly irreversible, course." (p.1-3, para.4) exhibits the belief that failings in the proposal could lead to catastrophe. See also "infinite risks" (para.7 & p.1-4, para.1). The implication that procrastination is a "paramount ethical principle" has to be questioned. Not making a decision is a de facto decision. I submit that this is where my "consequences and alternatives proposition" is relevant: the consequences of postponing a decision have to be examined. The authors exhibit faith that future generations will be much better at answering "the big scientific and ethical questions" than ours (para.7). Logically there is no end to this argument: each generation can say: "There is uncertainty, let's wait." Part of our generation's responsibility is to make a tough decision. Everyday we make, or fail to make, other decisions with similar serious and far-reaching consequences.
We have to see "what has gone wrong with the world" (p.2-4, para.2) represents a very negative and pessimistic attitude. When I look back on my seventy years I see huge improvements, not just in my personal well-being but in that of the world as a whole. I do not want to go back to the "good old days". We should equally try to learn from what has gone right, and why. The ethical case for plentiful energy is summarized in my submission.
I deny that "the little bow in the direction of value and ethics ... is all the technological imagination knows how to make." (p.2-5, para.8.2). Perhaps the churches should try listening.
The argument against paralysis and indecision by procrastination (paras. 8.5 & 8.6) have been given in Section 1.
The three acts of ethical integrity (paras.9, 10 & 11) should apply to the churches too.
In my history of the churches involvement in the nuclear debate two of the most contemptible actions have been due to church leaders.
At the Vancouver Conference of the Committee on Nuclear Issues in the Community in 1979 Dr. Clarke MacDonald, later Moderator of the UCC, ended his invited presentation by recounting a horrifying fable of Eva Manu, the Genie of Death. The impression conveyed was that nuclear energy is somehow associated with loathsome evil, but the fable's meaning was not explained so that those advocating nuclear energy were left defenceless.
The Interfaith Program for Public Awareness in Nuclear Issues (IPPANI) in 1985 was sponsored by five religious faiths including the UCC Toronto Conference. It was originally conceived as a kangaroo court to convict nuclear energy by a small group of anti-nuclear activists and it was only due to vigorous intervention by a few individuals that a somewhat more equitable process was developed. Although the program was initiated claiming that the peaceful applications of nuclear energy, at home and abroad, constituted a pressing public concern, there were only ten submissions from church groups. The organizers obtained only this small number by soliciting contributions and twice extending deadlines in breach of undertakings given to other participants. In the first week, on domestic issues, only one church submission considered ethical and moral issues, and then only one out of the five agenda questions. In the second week, on exports, both oral presentations discussed nuclear energy only incidentally, exploiting the occasion to promote their primary interest in banning Canadian trade of any kind with countries whose governments they considered repressive. I found the submissions by proponents of nuclear energy to be superior to those of the church groups in meeting deadlines, in addressing IPPANI's questions, in truth and accuracy of the content, and in giving thoughtful consideration to a full range of ethical issues. The organizers had obtained funds partly to use the outcome of the hearings as an educational tool. However, when the Panels did not condemn nuclear energy in the way hoped for, this part of the program was abandoned."explicit reference to nuclear power disappeared" (p.A-2, para.2) during the years that important decisions were being made, and now the authors criticize these decisions. The call for a moratorium now, without any examination of the consequences, is effectively:"Stop the world, I want to get off."
If the UCC was wrong once in reversing its opinion of nuclear energy (para.4) what assurance is there that it is right now?
This account omits (para.3) the opportunity the UCC had to participate in Ontario's Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, which included consideration of waste disposal.
The account (para.4) fails to mention that proponents of nuclear energy repeatedly objected to "Issue 15" as erroneous and misleading. As the result of these representations, the staff members concerned eventually published a small supplemental sheet, claiming that this provided balance. However, many months later "Issue 15", with all its errors, was still being distributed without the supplement.
The nuclear industry does not promote it as the answer to global warming, but an answer (p.A-4, para.3).
It is "straw-man" rhetoric to claim that nuclear proponents promised "unlimited power, infinite wellbeing/well-th/wealth, virtual godliness (immortality)." (p.B-3, para.1). The "Chart" is cowardly in suggesting something without having to prove anything. The meaning of the first column is obscure. "power too cheap to meter" is irrelevant to Canadian circumstances. The question "How do we get the energy needed for your jobs and homes?" (p.B-5, top) is a good one that the authors do not answer. There is not a worldwide retreat from nuclear power generation (also p.B-6, top). Can the authors substantiate their claim that Argentina, South Korea and Romania have "nuclear arsenals"? (p.B-6, top). Ontario Hydro has not supplied reactors outside Ontario. Once more the authors should be required to substantiate allegations of secrecy, manipulation, propaganda, mythology, force, violence, terror and death by the Canadian nuclear industry (p.B-6, mid). The diagram is incomprehensible and proves nothing.
"We could tell dozens of stories illustrating this pathology ...." (p.B-7, para.1). Not one has been told. Put up or shut up.
Canada did not "blunder" into nuclear energy (para.2) - see report AECL-10768. Although irrelevant to nuclear energy in Canada, there was widespread support, including in the churches, for the U.S.'s opposition to the U.S.S.R., which required a nuclear arsenal. Nuclear inquiries have not "been increasingly called for over the last twenty years." In fact, the opposite. It is only a few, but vociferous, anti-nuclear activists that demand one.
I have explained in the attachment to my submission that there is only a tenuous connection between the weapons and energy applications of nuclear energy (para.4).
For the many inquiries into all aspects of nuclear energy see report AECL-10768 (para.5).
Anyone stimulated to read a history from another standpoint should consult "Nucleus" by University of Toronto Professor Robert Bothwell (U. of T. Press); or "Canada Enters the Nuclear Age" by several retired AECL employees, soon to be published by McGill/Queen's University Press.
| Go to Contents of Publications |