Jeremy Whitlock, PhD
Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.
Chalk River, Ontario K01 110
Dear Jeremy Whitlock:
Your complaint about the IDEAS series "Counting the Costs", as I
understand it, has three components. The first is that the programs were
special-interest propaganda, self-serving, narrow-minded, and that I as
producer had ulterior motives. The second is that Norm Rubin of Energy
Probe is biased (and by implication, either misleading in his remarks
and/or incompetent) and that Energy Probe itself is not a national energy
think tank. The third involves the connection between the CANDU reactor,
Canada's nuclear program, and bomb
production.
Let me take the third issue first, since it is a matter of fact. I refer
you to your own website, question 31 ("Did India use a CANDU reactor in
the 1970's to make an atomic bomb?") and question 32 ("How easily can an
atomic bomb be made with spent CANDU fuel?") of The Canadian Nuclear FAQ,
together with an excerpt under the title "Making a Bomb Using Plutonium
from a Power Reactor", part of the document "Management and Disposition
of Excess Weapons Plutonium" by the Committee on International Security
and Arms Control of the (U.S.) National Academy of Sciences, which is at
www.ccnr.org/reactor_plute.html; and the extensive discussion of the
issue in Carole Giangrande's "The Nuclear North" (Toronto: Anasi Press,
1983).
Although you write "In Episode three (98/01/08), for instance, the show
asserts with impunity that CANDU reactors, having corporate links to a
war-time bomb-producing reactor design, is capable of supporting a
national nuclear weapons programme", the program did not use those words,
though I understand what you mean. (These days either theft or a gas
centrifuge plant would be preferable, but it's hard to imagine a Canadian
federal program that would underwrite the export of the latter, assuming
we could make
one.)
You continue "Since the links are historical and not technical, this
assertion is patently false." Indeed the links are historical
and technical; I think you mean to imply that the CANDU does
not produce bomb-capable material. But it does. What the Argentinian
military intended to do with its CANDU waste is not a decided issue, as
far as I know, but the available evidence is not comforting. Nor is it
clear what, in the future, the Koreans will do with, or how they will
subsequently control, CANDU technology' once they are independent of AECL
support.
As for Canada's past participation in bomb production: For at least twenty
years (1955-1976) there was a contractual connection between
Canada's nuclear program and nuclear weapons. From a letter dated 4 March
1996 from Thomas Seitz, deputy assistant secretary for military
application and stockpile management defense programs of the U.S.
Department of Energy: "The majority of the plutonium received from Canada
came from the Chalk River Facility. Approximately 252 kilograms of
plutonium in spent reactor fuel was sent to the Savannah River Site where
it was processed and blended with other materials in the main production
streams for the United States nuclear weapons program." Mr. Seitz's letter
doesn't say where the rest of the Canadian plutonium came from.
Your second point: I can assure you that Energy Probe is precisely a
national energy think tank, and I don't know any words that describe it
better. "Think tanks" do research and draw conclusions. Of course nuclear
issues are a major focus (about 60% of Ontario electricity is generated
by nuclear reactors). Energy Probe's work in energy issues of all kinds
is extensive; especially significant is work on the regulation of natural
gas supplies and transmission. For a historical list of activities and
publications' see http://www.nextcity.com/EnergyProbe/eppub.htm
Also from the Energy Probe website is this:
"History of Energy Probe's Position and Interest in Electricity
Reform - Energy Probe is part of the Energy Probe Research
Foundation, an independent' federally registered charity. Energy Probe
Research Foundation has approximately 48,000 supporters across Canada.
... Energy Probe promotes conservation, democratic policy processes, and
informed debate on resource use. In addition to our ongoing campaign for
structural reform of Ontario's electricity system, we are also
campaigning for tougher nuclear and environmental regulation, an early
and orderly phaseout of nuclear power in Canada, the enhancement of
property rights as a means of protecting the environment, utility reform
in other provinces with monopoly power systems, and further progress in
natural gas competition. ...
"Energy Probe has an unparalleled track record in assessing the problems
in the Ontario power system and proposing constructive solutions to these
problems. Unfortunately for at! of us, Ontario Hydro and the government
too frequently rejected Energy Probe's sound advice. For example, in
1976, Energy Probe announced that nuclear power was uneconomic, a
position that was dismissed in a chorus of derision from government and
corporate circles until recently. In February 1981, Energy Probe's Norman
Rubin, now our Director of Nuclear Research, wrote to Ontario Hydro's
directors urging the utility to withdraw from megaproject expansion,
especially the hugely uneconomical Darlington nuclear station, in favour
of more flexible
planning:
|
'Fortunately, flexibility is attainable - in fact, much more
attainable than even Hydro directors may realize. It is, though,
obviously incompatible with a large investment in nuclear plant
construction.' ...
|
"... Ontario Hydro's own polling shows that the public believes Energy
Probe to be a more reliable source of information than either Ontario
Hydro or the Minister of
Energy. "
Is Norm Rubin a credible source on nuclear power issues? (I have read
your essay "The Credibility Issue" at
www.nuclearfaq.ca/credibility.htm) According to our CBC
reference library files, he and Tom Adams of Energy Probe are the two
people most interviewed and quoted by journalists on these issues. I'm
told that in the 10 days following Ontario Hydro's release of the
Andognini report, they received over 400 requests for interviews and
comments. It seems to me that Rubin's work over the years speaks for
itself.
Your first point is that the programs I produced for IDEAS were
narrow-minded, self-serving, etc. The programs produced in 1986, before I
joined the Energy Probe board, concentrated on the future - especially
the financial future - of nuclear power. That future is, somewhat, here.
The costs of the accelerated degradation of reactor systems, both
physical and managerial, is now (somewhat) known. You and I have both
read Ontario Hydro's "Report to Management". I quoted from it on-air,
using the exact words of the people who oversee almost all of Canada's
reactors. You quote one line from the report in your letters to the
editor, and in your FAQ question 33. What you don't say is that the
operation of Hydro's reactors at Bruce, Darlington and
Pickering is in all cases either "minimally acceptable" or "below
standard". We both hope that can be improved (I live near them). It seems
as true today as it was in 1992 that "the nuclear power industry is being
squeezed out of the global energy marketplace"
[www.greenpeace.org/home/gopher/campaigns/nukepower/1992/nucind.
txt].
Will this situation change? I don't know. Will a technical solution to
the waste disposal security problem be found? I don't know. The programs
reported the situation as it exists.
In your letter to the CBC Ombudsman, you said that Norm Rubin's
appearance in the series was "essentially a case of Canada's most vocal
anti-nuclear group interviewing itself on national public radio. Many
Canadians do not appreciate this de-facto sponsorship of special-interest
propaganda with their money." This is a CBC policy issue, and
the CBC's response will come to you separately.
I have cited your on-line Canadian Nuclear FAQ in the bibliography we
send to people who ask for more
information.
Max Allen
Producer, IDEAS
9 February 1998
cc/CBC:
David Bazay
Esther Enkin
Bernie Lucht
|
