en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/555843 Comments by Timothy Phillips http://this.org/magazine/2009/05/03/dont-fight-the-power-nuclear-canada/#IDComment22957387 My first reaction from Jeremy Nelson's article is that if it is backed by the thinking of Patrick Moore and James Lovelock then it must be alright. Wait a minute, what am I saying? I was getting into such a depressed state of thinking that , if all sources of future energy production are so severely flawed, nuclear energy seemed such a perfect solution. Comparatively, nuclear energy might seem a blessing if we were to compare this to the devastation of land and natural resources caused by tar sand production and to the burning of coal. So does that make it alright? Does this make nuclear energy our saviour? There also seems a veiled threat that unless we agree to the immediate use of nuclear energy then we will be in hopeless shape for all our future energy needs. The insinuation is that we should not even try to develop renewable sources of energy because we are already so contaminated by smog that the wind would be insufficient to drive a turbine. So we should not even look any further because nuclear is the only viable alternative. Mr. Nelson dismisses the safety of nuclear plants as being unlike Russian designed facilities because we have "U.S. style containment." I don't find that statement reassuring. Our news stories reported in the North America press is made up daily of disasters that could have been prevented. He says the increased incidences of cancers is not necessarily because of the proximity of nuclear plants but because of better diagnosis. He also states that some studies have found lower rates of cancer near nuclear plants. Well, I can't wait to move to Darlington. But, we are a caring society obsessed with safety to the point that we stick our children in special car seats, so it follows that our nuclear plants must also be safe. This is a non sequitur. Radon gas in our basements supposedly provides the half the radiation that we will be exposed to in our lifetime. That seems to be a similar argument that would suggest that smoking cigars is much better for the health than smoking cigarettes. Mr. Nelson uses a similar argument that the risk of dying in an airplane crash far outweighs the risk of nuclear accident. He suggests that that does not deter us from saving three days of precious vacation time by flying rather than driving. The truth is that we need to adopt a different attitude. Mr Nelson's thread is about how we can continue to live a life of excess. In other words, he might suggest that we need make no sacrifice in order to save the planet. Nuclear energy is not renewable. Sooner, rather than later, we need to examine renewable sources of energy. Now is the time to put time, effort and investment into examining truly safe, innovative and life enhancing sources of energy. We do not compare the effectiveness of nuclear again wind turbines, nuclear against solar energy, nuclear against geothermal, nuclear against hydro power, nuclear against ocean power or any other renewable energy source. We examine them all together. On a micro level, conservation, preservation and recycling are steps that we as Canadians can contribute to an environmentally better world. On a macro level, federal, provincial, municipal and corporate levels of government can provide the education and direction necessary to lead the way in sound environmental innovation without resorting to nuclear energy. Mon, 1 Jun 2009 05:14:13 +0000 http://this.org/magazine/2009/05/03/dont-fight-the-power-nuclear-canada/#IDComment22957387