Comment: The following articles are interesting because the local Canadians are fighting against nuclear power and the bias of the nuke bunch. They are encouraging their people to write letters against Nuke power and we all need to write letters against uranium mining to our local papers and our state and local leaders. Go to the link below and see the history the anti-Nuke bunch:
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/Search.aspx?search=nuclear+power&pubId=145
Read the following letters listed below:
Posted 3 days ago
To the Editor:
It seems to be a tactic of the nuclear industry that whenever someone disagrees with their position on nuclear power, that person is attacked as being ignorant or emotional.
There are certainly some facts that William Olsen failed to consider when he wrote his letter attacking me on June 16, 2009.
Mr. Olsen’s detailed description of the credentials of the four members of Alberta’s Nuclear Panel proves my point rather than refuting it.
These individuals are trained in business and engineering, not biological or health sciences.
A business professor studies such things as supply and demand, profi tability and labour force impact.
A nuclear engineer studies the design, construction and operation of nuclear reactors.
These are honorable fields of study, but they do not give an in-depth
understanding of the impact of low-dose radiation on DNA or the genesis of cancer in children.
Why did our government not appoint a cellular biologist, a geneticist or a pediatrician to its Nuclear Panel?
Why did that Panel refuse to meet with Dr. Helen Caldicott, a world-renowned
pediatrician who worked with child victims of thyroid cancer after the Chernobyl disaster, when she offered to give them information on the health effects of nuclear power?
In fact, if you look at the bibliography of the Alberta Nuclear Panel’s Report you will see that the panel reviewed only one health study—a study on the legacy of
Chernobyl by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is an agency which promotes the use of nuclear energy worldwide.
This report has been roundly criticized by thousands of doctors as vastly understating the health impacts of Chernobyl.
An alternate report, found at www.chernobyl. info gives estimates of cancer deaths that are seven to 15 times greater than those found in the IAEA report. It states that 25,000 of the 800,000 soldiers deployed to clean up the reactor compound have since died of cancer.
By contrast to the Nuclear Panel Report, a recent report by two family physicians in Ontario called “Human Health Impacts Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation” lists 73 sources of health-related information
(Vakil and Harvey, 2009).
These are all sources our Nuclear Panel in Alberta chose to overlook.
One of the most important sources quoted in the latter publication is the KiKK study commissioned by the German government and conducted by scientists at the University of Mainz.
It showed an unequivocal positive relationship between a child’s risk of leukemia
and residential proximity to a nuclear plant.
A previous review of 17 leukemia studies covering 136 nuclear reactors in eight countries, including Canada, found a statistically signifi cant increase in leukemia among infants and children living within 25 km of a nuclear facility.
The results of this review are published in the July, 2007 issue of the European
Journal of Cancer Care.
Another important study is the 2007 Radiation and Health in Durham Region Study, which looked at various health outcomes in the vicinity of the Pickering and Darlington reactors in Ontario.
The authors found statistically significant increases in combined cancers, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, bladder cancer, mutiple myeloma, leukemia and
congenital neural tube defects.
It is not only health information that was overlooked by our Alberta Panel (which had about a year to study the nuclear issue, while Albertans were given only
five weeks to respond to their Report).
The Panel apparently chose not to review Pembina Institute’s comprehensive report Nuclear Power in Canada:
An Examination of Risks, Impacts and Sustainability (2007). This report contains tables showing the amount of discharge of various radioactive substances and other environmental toxins from Canadian nuclear reactors.
It also discusses the legacy of massive cost overruns, construction delays
and reliability problems at Canada’s nuclear power facilities.
Mr. Olsen states in his letter that members of Alberta’s Nuclear Panel “do not have any vested interest in the nuclear industry in Alberta”. And he acknowledges that Dr. John Luxat sits on the board of Atomic Energy of Canada, which is a crown corporation that is desperately trying to sell nuclear reactors in Canada, including here in Alberta. (It is the same crown corporation that has created the current medical isotope crisis.)
I guess it is just a coincidence that this panel looked only at pro-nuclear sources of information when it compiled its report.
Brenda Brochu, BA, BEd, RSW
Peace River, AB
Nuclear Consultation In Alberta
Posted 18 days ago
To the Editor:
This letter is in response to a letter written by Brenda Brochu entitled “Nuclear consultation flawed” which appeared in the Fairview Post, and presumably in the Peace River Record Gazette, in late May. Her letter was concerned about the government of Alberta’s consultation process to look into whether nuclear power is an appropriate addition to the province’s electrical energy sources.
The consultation process includes a public opinion survey (on-line or in written form) on important questions related to nuclear power for Alberta. The questionnaire is to be considered by a Panel of Nuclear Power Experts along with the technical, economical, and environmental ramifications of nuclear electrical power in Alberta.
Some of the questions might seem to be irrelevant, but I am sure that all of them were skillfully posed to establish whether the responders have some understanding of our electrical system and the demands that are being put on it. Answers which appear to be based only on unfounded, emotional opinion will, I hope, be given less weight than those based on some practical knowledge. One question which was deemed to be irrelevant by Ms. Brochu was whether the responder could explain (some of) the details of our electrical system to others. It seems to me that the purpose of this question is obvious and its answer would be quite revealing.
And then Ms. Brochu objects to the Panel of Nuclear Experts consisting only of technical experts, feeling, I suppose, that opinions based on emotions rather than logic should be allowed to influence the panel. She also thinks there should be public meetings where “citizens can come out and hear which ideas really stand up to scrutiny”. Well, I am certain that the panel doesn’t want to hear ideas which cannot be backed up by scientific facts. Ideas based on emotion only are of no use. In any case, there have been many public meetings held in the Peace region, with scientific experts present, but most of these meetings have been disrupted by rude, boisterous ‘anti-nukes’ who were, I am certain, totally ignorant of nuclear physics and nuclear power.
Ms. Brochu also objects to the composition of the Expert Panel, calling it “the government’s so-called “expert panel”, who are mainly experts in business practice.” And she states that “no one on this panel has any expertise in health or the environment.” Well, for the information of Ms. Brochu and the public in general, let me describe the Expert Panel in some detail.
The Panel is chaired by the Honourable Dr. Harvie Andre; BSc, MSc, PhD, FEIC. Dr. Andre is a chemical engineer who, after receiving his PhD from the university of Alberta in 1966, was one of the founding professors of Chemical Engineering at the University of Calgary. After retiring from parliament Dr. Andre became involved primarily in the oil and gas industry.
Dr. Joseph Doucet; B.Mgt.Sc, MSc, PhD. is another member of the panel. Dr. Doucet holds the prestigious Enbridge Professorship in Energy Policy in the University of Alberta’s School of Business. He directs a specialized MBA program in natural Resources, Energy and the Environment. He is the Director of the University of Alberta’s School of Energy and Environment. Dr. Doucet received his Masters’s and Doctor’s degrees from the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. John Luxat; BSc, MSc, PhD, is a third member of the panel. He is Professor of Engineering Physics at McMaster University where he holds the NSERC/UNENE Industrial Research Chair in Nuclear Safety Analysis. He teaches nuclear engineering and safety to graduate and undergraduate students and conducts research in nuclear safety, reactor physics, and nuclear fuel cycles. Prior to joining McMaster University he spent 32 years in many areas of nuclear safety and nuclear engineering in the Canadian nuclear industry. He is a member of the Board of AECL Ltd. and many other organizations in the nuclear industry.
The fourth and last member of the panel is Dr. Harrie Vredenburg; BA, MBA, PhD, ICD.D.
Continued After Advertisement Below
Advertisement
Dr. Vredenburg is Professor of Strategy at the University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business. He holds the Suncor Energy Chair in Competitive Strategy and Sustainable Development, a research chair affiliated with the University’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy. He teaches in MBA, MSc, Executive MBA, and PhD programs as well as in executive development and director’s education programs. He is also Adjunct Professor of Environmental Science in the Faculty of Environmental Design. He has authored or co-authored more than 50 research articles, book chapters, and case studies on business strategy, energy, environment, and sustainable development in many prestigious, peer-reviewed publications.
If this committee doesn’t qualify as a Nuclear Power Expert Panel, I cannot imagine what would. They are scientists, engineers, and businessmen who live by a strict code of Scientific and Business Ethics and who do not have any vested interest in the nuclear power industry in Alberta.
The rest of Ms. Brochu’s letter relating to nuclear waste storage, the release of radioactive substances into the atmosphere, the preponderance of leukemia victims near reactor sites, and the Pembina Institute’s claim that nuclear power is not needed in the foreseeable future are all unsubstantiated (actually false) Anti-Nuke propaganda.
If only those people who are so opposed to nuclear power would do some unbiased literature search for themselves on both sides of the question, I am sure that most will be convinced that nuclear power is a clean, safe, limitless, environmentally safe, source of electrical energy that will serve humanity indefinitely.
Yours truly,
William C. Olsen, BASc, MASc, PhD
Professor Emeritus (Nuclear Physics)
University of Alberta.
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1617511
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1638877
June 23, 2009
Letter to the Editor of the Peace River Record Gazette:
Nuclear Experts Have No Vested Interest in Alberta Nuclear Power?
I read with both amazement and amusement the Letter to the Editor written by Professor William C. Olsen about the merits of nuclear power. The letter was published in the June 16 edition of the Record Gazette.
In his letter, Professor Olsen was kind enough to give a detailed background description of the qualifications and affiliations of the members on the Panel of Nuclear Experts: Dr. Harvey Andre, retired politician and closely involved with the oil and gas industry. Dr. Joseph Doucet, Holder of Enbridge Professorship in Energy Policy at the U of A. Dr. John Luxat, Nuclear Safety Engineer and current member of the board of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Dr. Harrie Vredenburg, Holder of the Suncor Energy Chair in Competitive Strategy and Sustainable Development at the U of C.
Professor Olson goes on to say that these people “do not have any vested interest in the nuclear power industry in Alberta”. That is an amazing statement given the background of the people, as described above.
In the final paragraph of his letter, Professor Olsen says:” If only those people who are so opposed to nuclear power would do some unbiased literature search for themselves on both sides of the question, I am sure that most would be convinced that nuclear power is a clean, safe, limitless, environmentally safe, source of electrical energy that will serve humanity indefinitely”.
What Professor Olsen has very ably demonstrated in his letter is that he, and his fellow academics serving on the government appointed panel, are about as biased as it is possible to be in relation to the desirability of nuclear power generation in Alberta.
Helge Nome
http://www.socialcredit.com/
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/Search.aspx?search=nuclear+power&pubId=145
Read the following letters listed below:
Posted 3 days ago
To the Editor:
It seems to be a tactic of the nuclear industry that whenever someone disagrees with their position on nuclear power, that person is attacked as being ignorant or emotional.
There are certainly some facts that William Olsen failed to consider when he wrote his letter attacking me on June 16, 2009.
Mr. Olsen’s detailed description of the credentials of the four members of Alberta’s Nuclear Panel proves my point rather than refuting it.
These individuals are trained in business and engineering, not biological or health sciences.
A business professor studies such things as supply and demand, profi tability and labour force impact.
A nuclear engineer studies the design, construction and operation of nuclear reactors.
These are honorable fields of study, but they do not give an in-depth
understanding of the impact of low-dose radiation on DNA or the genesis of cancer in children.
Why did our government not appoint a cellular biologist, a geneticist or a pediatrician to its Nuclear Panel?
Why did that Panel refuse to meet with Dr. Helen Caldicott, a world-renowned
pediatrician who worked with child victims of thyroid cancer after the Chernobyl disaster, when she offered to give them information on the health effects of nuclear power?
In fact, if you look at the bibliography of the Alberta Nuclear Panel’s Report you will see that the panel reviewed only one health study—a study on the legacy of
Chernobyl by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is an agency which promotes the use of nuclear energy worldwide.
This report has been roundly criticized by thousands of doctors as vastly understating the health impacts of Chernobyl.
An alternate report, found at www.chernobyl. info gives estimates of cancer deaths that are seven to 15 times greater than those found in the IAEA report. It states that 25,000 of the 800,000 soldiers deployed to clean up the reactor compound have since died of cancer.
By contrast to the Nuclear Panel Report, a recent report by two family physicians in Ontario called “Human Health Impacts Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation” lists 73 sources of health-related information
(Vakil and Harvey, 2009).
These are all sources our Nuclear Panel in Alberta chose to overlook.
One of the most important sources quoted in the latter publication is the KiKK study commissioned by the German government and conducted by scientists at the University of Mainz.
It showed an unequivocal positive relationship between a child’s risk of leukemia
and residential proximity to a nuclear plant.
A previous review of 17 leukemia studies covering 136 nuclear reactors in eight countries, including Canada, found a statistically signifi cant increase in leukemia among infants and children living within 25 km of a nuclear facility.
The results of this review are published in the July, 2007 issue of the European
Journal of Cancer Care.
Another important study is the 2007 Radiation and Health in Durham Region Study, which looked at various health outcomes in the vicinity of the Pickering and Darlington reactors in Ontario.
The authors found statistically significant increases in combined cancers, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, bladder cancer, mutiple myeloma, leukemia and
congenital neural tube defects.
It is not only health information that was overlooked by our Alberta Panel (which had about a year to study the nuclear issue, while Albertans were given only
five weeks to respond to their Report).
The Panel apparently chose not to review Pembina Institute’s comprehensive report Nuclear Power in Canada:
An Examination of Risks, Impacts and Sustainability (2007). This report contains tables showing the amount of discharge of various radioactive substances and other environmental toxins from Canadian nuclear reactors.
It also discusses the legacy of massive cost overruns, construction delays
and reliability problems at Canada’s nuclear power facilities.
Mr. Olsen states in his letter that members of Alberta’s Nuclear Panel “do not have any vested interest in the nuclear industry in Alberta”. And he acknowledges that Dr. John Luxat sits on the board of Atomic Energy of Canada, which is a crown corporation that is desperately trying to sell nuclear reactors in Canada, including here in Alberta. (It is the same crown corporation that has created the current medical isotope crisis.)
I guess it is just a coincidence that this panel looked only at pro-nuclear sources of information when it compiled its report.
Brenda Brochu, BA, BEd, RSW
Peace River, AB
Nuclear Consultation In Alberta
Posted 18 days ago
To the Editor:
This letter is in response to a letter written by Brenda Brochu entitled “Nuclear consultation flawed” which appeared in the Fairview Post, and presumably in the Peace River Record Gazette, in late May. Her letter was concerned about the government of Alberta’s consultation process to look into whether nuclear power is an appropriate addition to the province’s electrical energy sources.
The consultation process includes a public opinion survey (on-line or in written form) on important questions related to nuclear power for Alberta. The questionnaire is to be considered by a Panel of Nuclear Power Experts along with the technical, economical, and environmental ramifications of nuclear electrical power in Alberta.
Some of the questions might seem to be irrelevant, but I am sure that all of them were skillfully posed to establish whether the responders have some understanding of our electrical system and the demands that are being put on it. Answers which appear to be based only on unfounded, emotional opinion will, I hope, be given less weight than those based on some practical knowledge. One question which was deemed to be irrelevant by Ms. Brochu was whether the responder could explain (some of) the details of our electrical system to others. It seems to me that the purpose of this question is obvious and its answer would be quite revealing.
And then Ms. Brochu objects to the Panel of Nuclear Experts consisting only of technical experts, feeling, I suppose, that opinions based on emotions rather than logic should be allowed to influence the panel. She also thinks there should be public meetings where “citizens can come out and hear which ideas really stand up to scrutiny”. Well, I am certain that the panel doesn’t want to hear ideas which cannot be backed up by scientific facts. Ideas based on emotion only are of no use. In any case, there have been many public meetings held in the Peace region, with scientific experts present, but most of these meetings have been disrupted by rude, boisterous ‘anti-nukes’ who were, I am certain, totally ignorant of nuclear physics and nuclear power.
Ms. Brochu also objects to the composition of the Expert Panel, calling it “the government’s so-called “expert panel”, who are mainly experts in business practice.” And she states that “no one on this panel has any expertise in health or the environment.” Well, for the information of Ms. Brochu and the public in general, let me describe the Expert Panel in some detail.
The Panel is chaired by the Honourable Dr. Harvie Andre; BSc, MSc, PhD, FEIC. Dr. Andre is a chemical engineer who, after receiving his PhD from the university of Alberta in 1966, was one of the founding professors of Chemical Engineering at the University of Calgary. After retiring from parliament Dr. Andre became involved primarily in the oil and gas industry.
Dr. Joseph Doucet; B.Mgt.Sc, MSc, PhD. is another member of the panel. Dr. Doucet holds the prestigious Enbridge Professorship in Energy Policy in the University of Alberta’s School of Business. He directs a specialized MBA program in natural Resources, Energy and the Environment. He is the Director of the University of Alberta’s School of Energy and Environment. Dr. Doucet received his Masters’s and Doctor’s degrees from the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. John Luxat; BSc, MSc, PhD, is a third member of the panel. He is Professor of Engineering Physics at McMaster University where he holds the NSERC/UNENE Industrial Research Chair in Nuclear Safety Analysis. He teaches nuclear engineering and safety to graduate and undergraduate students and conducts research in nuclear safety, reactor physics, and nuclear fuel cycles. Prior to joining McMaster University he spent 32 years in many areas of nuclear safety and nuclear engineering in the Canadian nuclear industry. He is a member of the Board of AECL Ltd. and many other organizations in the nuclear industry.
The fourth and last member of the panel is Dr. Harrie Vredenburg; BA, MBA, PhD, ICD.D.
Continued After Advertisement Below
Advertisement
Dr. Vredenburg is Professor of Strategy at the University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business. He holds the Suncor Energy Chair in Competitive Strategy and Sustainable Development, a research chair affiliated with the University’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy. He teaches in MBA, MSc, Executive MBA, and PhD programs as well as in executive development and director’s education programs. He is also Adjunct Professor of Environmental Science in the Faculty of Environmental Design. He has authored or co-authored more than 50 research articles, book chapters, and case studies on business strategy, energy, environment, and sustainable development in many prestigious, peer-reviewed publications.
If this committee doesn’t qualify as a Nuclear Power Expert Panel, I cannot imagine what would. They are scientists, engineers, and businessmen who live by a strict code of Scientific and Business Ethics and who do not have any vested interest in the nuclear power industry in Alberta.
The rest of Ms. Brochu’s letter relating to nuclear waste storage, the release of radioactive substances into the atmosphere, the preponderance of leukemia victims near reactor sites, and the Pembina Institute’s claim that nuclear power is not needed in the foreseeable future are all unsubstantiated (actually false) Anti-Nuke propaganda.
If only those people who are so opposed to nuclear power would do some unbiased literature search for themselves on both sides of the question, I am sure that most will be convinced that nuclear power is a clean, safe, limitless, environmentally safe, source of electrical energy that will serve humanity indefinitely.
Yours truly,
William C. Olsen, BASc, MASc, PhD
Professor Emeritus (Nuclear Physics)
University of Alberta.
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1617511
http://www.prrecordgazette.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1638877
June 23, 2009
Letter to the Editor of the Peace River Record Gazette:
Nuclear Experts Have No Vested Interest in Alberta Nuclear Power?
I read with both amazement and amusement the Letter to the Editor written by Professor William C. Olsen about the merits of nuclear power. The letter was published in the June 16 edition of the Record Gazette.
In his letter, Professor Olsen was kind enough to give a detailed background description of the qualifications and affiliations of the members on the Panel of Nuclear Experts: Dr. Harvey Andre, retired politician and closely involved with the oil and gas industry. Dr. Joseph Doucet, Holder of Enbridge Professorship in Energy Policy at the U of A. Dr. John Luxat, Nuclear Safety Engineer and current member of the board of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Dr. Harrie Vredenburg, Holder of the Suncor Energy Chair in Competitive Strategy and Sustainable Development at the U of C.
Professor Olson goes on to say that these people “do not have any vested interest in the nuclear power industry in Alberta”. That is an amazing statement given the background of the people, as described above.
In the final paragraph of his letter, Professor Olsen says:” If only those people who are so opposed to nuclear power would do some unbiased literature search for themselves on both sides of the question, I am sure that most would be convinced that nuclear power is a clean, safe, limitless, environmentally safe, source of electrical energy that will serve humanity indefinitely”.
What Professor Olsen has very ably demonstrated in his letter is that he, and his fellow academics serving on the government appointed panel, are about as biased as it is possible to be in relation to the desirability of nuclear power generation in Alberta.
Helge Nome
http://www.socialcredit.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment