March 4, 1998
Max Allen
Producer, CBC IDEAS
|
c: | David Bazay
Esther Enkin
Bernie Lucht
|
Dear Max Allen:
Thank you for taking the time to respond (February 9, 1998) to my
complaint about your series "Counting the Costs". You summarized my
complaint as follows:
- that the programs were special-interest propaganda, and self-serving
(since you belong to Energy Probe);
- that one of your main interview subjects, Norm Rubin, is a biased
expert; and
- that there is a connection between the Canadian nuclear industry and
nuclear bomb production.
I note that you missed my main assertion - that the programs generally
failed to air the opposing view on this issue, a basic tenet of
responsible journalism. Indeed, it is not likely that I would have
raised the above three grievances if the nuclear industry had been
represented equitably on your shows (although I would have remained
annoyed at the conflict-of-interest presented by yourself, as both IDEAS
producer and Energy Probe board member).
The explanations you provide in defence of the above three grievances are
less than satisfactory, and the rest of this letter explains why.
However, since I have been informed that you have been told to sever your
ties with Energy Probe if you are to produce a CBC program on nuclear
issues again, I am willing to close this matter for now. I assume that
this stipulation includes the re-airing of old shows on nuclear issues,
such as "Counting the Costs", since it is an impotent measure otherwise.
Therefore, by copy to all concerned, I am indicating my satisfaction with
the measures taken by CBC in response to my complaint to CBC IDEAS and
the CBC Ombudsman. The remainder of this letter is of interest if you
wish to know more about the issues involved, and in particular my
response to your arguments.
You began with the third issue above - the connection between the
Canadian nuclear industry and nuclear bomb production. You pointed out
that, contrary to my assertion, the IDEAS program did not state that a
"national nuclear weapons program" could be supported by a CANDU
reactor. You are correct that the program didn't use those words, but
the message was definitely that a country bent on becoming a nuclear
weapons state would naturally gravitate to the CANDU design. I fail to
see how my summary was wrong.
You quote my own "Canadian Nuclear FAQ" website, Questions 31 and 32, as
backup. I find this odd, since neither question supports your point:
Question 31 (
"Did India use a CANDU reactor in the 1970's to make an atomic
bomb?") deals with how, contrary to popular belief, a CANDU reactor
was NOT used for the production of bomb material; while Question 32
("How easily can an atomic bomb be made with spent CANDU fuel?")
deals with reactor-grade plutonium, and the virtual impossibility of
making a militarily significant nuclear weapon with this material.
My comment about the lack of a technical link between CANDU reactors and
Canada's historical weapons-material production, was in reference to Norm
Rubin's off-the-cuff remark about CANDU's "lineage" to this effect. Here
he was alluding to the NRX and NRU reactors at Chalk River Laboratories,
which bear little resemblance to CANDU technology, regardless of the fact
that the same company who ran them, also sells CANDU reactors. The
remark is a favourite rhetorical chestnut of Norm's, but repetition does
not change the facts. The world was a different place during the cold
war; people, and countries, move on.
Canada has not produced weapons-grade plutonium since a policy decision
to this effect several decades ago. A competent representative of the
nuclear industry would have pointed this out, avoiding a misunderstanding
by your audience. Instead, you chose to attack the credibility of an
"AECL president", who was only relaying the facts.
The same competent representative of the nuclear industry would also have
pointed out the difficulty of basing a nuclear bomb program on
CANDU-generated plutonium, from a political, economic, and technical
point of view, and perhaps mentioned three or four much simpler routes to
nuclear-state status (including building a small research reactor for a
fraction of the cost, and free of non-proliferation treaties). Instead,
your viewers were left with only the Energy Probe party line on this
rather important point.
On the subject of Energy Probe's objectivity, you defend the
characterization of it as a "think tank", since think tanks "do research
and draw conclusions". Admittedly, what we are discussing is little more
than a buzzword, subject to interpretation, but I submit to you that
"think tanks" should not start out with a biased mandate. Certainly, a
special-interest group dedicated to "alternative" power sources, which
(at least in the 80's) received funding from the fossil-fuel industry,
and which employs a full-time researcher to develop and espouse
anti-nuclear policy, is not an objective "think tank" on energy issues.
It is, perhaps, an "anti-nuclear think tank", or more generally, an
"alternative energy policy think tank", but to refer to it as such on
IDEAS would have diminished its perceived credibility.
If you wish, I can supply you with names of credible "think tanks" on
general energy policy. Energy Probe is not one of them. As I pointed
out in my letter, Energy Probe is possibly Canada's most vocal
anti-nuclear group (regardless of its other activities). As such, it
enjoys the self-indulgent pairing of both (a) significant
influence on public opinion, and (b) economic dependence on
public opinion.
This brings us to the question of "credibility". I am surprised, since
you reference my essay "The Credibility
Issue", that you misunderstand the meaning, and my point. I refer to
the precise definition of the word - the degree to which a person should
be believed. Note that this does not necessarily have an association
with the degree to which a person IS believed. Credibility, in the true
sense of the word, is a common concept in the technical world, but a
foreign one to the general public. Therefore, in my essay I outline a
short list of tests that a lay reader may use to help determine
credibility, given two highly technical, but opposing points of view. I
hope you aren't suggesting that the number of "requests for interviews"
by the media is another such test (!). If so, you are mistaking
"popularity" for "credibility", which is a colloquial association at
best. Scientific credibility does not depend on rhetoric, "on-air
savvy", or self-declared credentials (in short, perception) - all
of which, admittedly, make Norm Rubin, and Energy Probe, quite popular.
However, when Norm Rubin lies about the level to which citizens are
insured against nuclear accidents (according to his fundraising letters:
"none"), and the level to which nuclear equipment suppliers are liable
for accidents their products cause (again: "none"), he is using this
popularity to scare citizens with blatant misinformation - I, and many
others, find this reprehensible.
Finally, you refer to Ontario Hydro's "Andognini" report. I am with you
100% in hoping that our provincial utility shapes up and learns how to
manage its nuclear fleet better. However, I suspect that you
misinterpret the report's assessment of "minimally acceptable" operation
standards, as a comment on the operational safety of its nuclear plants.
Be assured, as Andognini has stressed over and over again, including at
the news release of the report itself, that this is not the case.
"Safety" only comes into the picture as a reason that reactors may soon
be prematurely shut down IF the utility doesn't fix its current
managerial problems. Unfortunately, mainly due to callous wording on the
part of Ontario Hydro in media interviews, the distinction wasn't
clarified, and the general impression is certainly that seven reactors
have been "grounded" on safety grounds.
As for the propaganda nature of the IDEAS programs, the fact that you
read from the Ontario Hydro report does not constitute equitable
treatment. Indeed, the very bibliography you send to people looking for
more information seems particularly unbalanced on the anti-nuclear side;
the inclusion of my website address is appreciated, but even that was
only added after my complaint.
The problem is especially worsened by the fact that regular IDEAS
listeners are used to stimulating opinions being put forth on the show.
By and large, these are assumed to be well-considered opinions, stemming
from unique perspectives on the world (and it is, aside from this gaffe,
normally a fine bit of programming). In the case of "Counting the
Costs", however, the failure to point out the anti-nuclear nature of
Energy Probe quite possibly lead to undue credence given to its comments.
My overriding concern is with the fair treatment of public information on
nuclear power in Canada. Please write back if any part of this
discussion can be expanded upon further, or if I can be of any help in
supplying references on this topic.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Whitlock
|
