Date:
From:
Organization:
Subject: |
Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:35:31 -0800
NormanRubin@nextcity.com (Norman Rubin)
EPRF
A Pro-Nuke critique of the Panel Report,
from AECL's Jeremy Whitlock
|
Following is a letter to the editor by AECL CRNL staff person Jeremy
Whitlock, about the HLW/FEARO report, released 98/03/13. For those
unfamiliar with Jeremy, he's a Ph.D. physicist who works mainly on
reactor-control issues (as I recall) and hosts a very informative and
incredibly well-maintained web-site called "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ",
at http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/ which, he says, gets a rather
pathetic 16 "hits" (visits) per day. The text below is trivially edited
from that web-site. I think I've got it exactly as it appeared in the
[Deep River] North Renfrew Times, on March 25, 1998. His text on the
web-site actually starts "To the Globe and Mail:", but I'm not aware
that the Globe and Mail ran it. Did anybody see it in the Globe and
Mail?
I'm reproducing it here, not because I agree with it, or even because
it's unusually outrageous (though it IS a bit outrageous). Rather, it's
one of the VERY FEW spots in all the media coverage that has correctly
made a difficult distinction that the Panel HAD to make, and tried
reasonably hard to make: the distinction between "acceptability" and
"safety from a social perspective". The distinction is important BOTH to
the present formal decisions by the panel, the gov't, etc., AND to the
broader public issues and understanding.
In brief, the Panel's guidelines required them to answer two separate
questions: Is the Concept SAFE? and Is the Concept ACCEPTABLE? They seem
to have had no trouble concluding, unanimously, that the Concept IS NOT
ACCEPTABLE. Re: Is the Concept SAFE? they were clearly divided among
themselves (as was the testimony they heard), and they reflected that
division by answering the question from two "perspectives": the
"technical perspective" and the "social perspective". Both
"perspectives" ask the same questions ("a" through "g"), but they come
up with different answers. To the technical [mindset], they concluded
that the safety of the Concept "has been on balance adequately
demonstrated for a conceptual stage of development" -- a carefully
qualified "go". To the "social perspective" [i.e., to a "normal"
intelligent person who has been paying attention but hasn't lost every
shred of common sense], "it has not".
NB that WHETHER OR NOT the Concept is judged "SAFE", they concluded that
it is NOT ACCEPTABLE, apparently failing on all 6 counts of
acceptability, "a" through "f". Unfortunately, the press release and
background, and Blair's speech, all harped a bit too much on "a" -- "it
must have broad public support". As a result, it's been easy for
reporters and AECL-types to leave the impression that the Concept is
perfectly acceptable except for the lack of broad public support. But it
didn't just flunk acceptability criterion "a", it also flunked b, c, d,
e, and f!
Moreover, it did NOT pass the "Is it SAFE?" test; it flunked -- with
50%. That last point was generally missed, but Jeremy understood it --
and hated it -- when he wrote this letter. (Incidentally, he pretends
NOT to understand it AT ALL in the body of his "FAQ" on the subject:
"The report concluded that the plan for Deep Geological Disposal is
technically sound, and that nuclear waste would be safely isolated from
the biosphere, but that it remains a socially unacceptable plan in
Canada. The report makes several recommendations, including the creation
of an independent agency to oversee the range of activities leading to
implementation. The scope will include complete public participation in
the process." I've searched the report electronically, to see if it
really says "that nuclear waste would be safely isolated from the
biosphere". The report never uses the phrase "safely isolated", and none
of the appearances of the phrase "the biosphere" gives much support to
the claim -- but that's Jeremy, AECL, etc., for you!)
Here's the letter, followed by my comments on it:
[ My letter deleted, to save space - JW]
~~~~~~~~~
NR's comments on the letter:
NB that Jeremy INVERTS the Panel's discussion of SAFE and ACCEPTABLE:
The report is very clear that "safety", judged from both perspectives,
is ONE of SEVEN criteria for ACCEPTABILITY. Jeremy suggests that they've
done it the other way around:
"[...] the inclusion of this acceptability, by the panel, within the
definition of "safety".
He also (intentionally) misunderstands the decision that the Concept is
NOT SAFE from the social perspective, as follows:
"The more legally-minded [anti-nukes] have invoked our Charter of
Human Rights, claiming that radiation dose, no matter how
insignificant, and regardless of the direct benefits (e.g. clean
electricity, cancer therapy), should be banned if an individual
chooses not to be exposed to it, as a matter of personal rights. "
That "claim" is one I'd admit I'd make, though it's NOT based on the
Charter, and it's NOT what led the Panel to conclude that the Concept is
NOT SAFE from the social perspective! I don't think anything like this
"claim" came up in any of the seven criteria for safety.
But the "best" part of the letter is surely this:
"The effect on human and environmental health, now and into
the future, is a matter of scientific determination. How we may feel
about those findings is equally important, but another chapter
altogether."
To which it's hard to say more than "Wow!" -- but I'll force myself: The
Panel, like many of us, was pretty clear that all effects "into the
future" we're talking about -- 100s of 1000s of years into the future --
is NOT, at least at present, "a matter of scientific determination."
That's like, kind of, the whole point, eh? And that's why the
determination comes down to a dispute between "I don't trust the
forecast, forecaster, etc." and "We've followed [today's] Best
Professional Practices, and that's the best we can do, so let's drill
the hole already!"
Norman Rubin
Peace and Environment Resource Centre
http://www.perc.flora.org
**************************************************
|