Nuclear power consultation process blasted by Northern Alberta residents By Hanneke Brooymans, edmontonjournal.com une 5, 2009 EDMONTON — Citizens who gathered in Edmonton Friday to participate in a provincial government consultation on nuclear power blasted the process for being secretive and rushed………………………….

Citizens who don’t want nuclear power plants in Alberta say the entire consultation process on the issue has been biased, beginning with the expert report released earlier this year.

They also found the five weeks given to the public to fill out a survey workbook was too short.

Albertans were given 75 days to offer their thoughts on new licence plates and 60 days on parks consultations, said Mark Sandilands, a member of a southern Alberta environmental group called Greensence.

The group is pushing for the provincial government to also run a public consultation process on renewable energy options.

Issues: Another contentious issue, another phony consultation Nuclear Consultations VUE WEEKLY Ricardo Acuña  Why bother? Does anyone in Alberta really believe that “consultations” and “expert panel” reports generated by the provincial government are ever anything more than attempts to whitewash contentious issues and unpopular policies? Yet the government continues to spend millions of dollars on these public relations exercises, and continues to try pass them off as genuine and objective consultations.

The latest supposed information gathering and public consultation effort launched by the government is no different. When Albertans responded loudly and angrily to a proposal from Ontario’s Bruce Power to build up to four nuclear reactors in northern Alberta, the government sought to quell the outcry by assuring us that they would not take a position on nuclear power without first studying the pros and cons in depth and fully consulting the public.
As always, the first step in this process was the appointment of an “expert panel” to produce a “comprehensive and balanced” research report, which would look at the environmental, safety and myriad other issues related to nuclear power generation.

Unfortunately, the panel itself was neither comprehensive nor balanced. The panel is chaired by Harvie Andre, a former Conservative MP who remains closely allied with pro-nuclear Conservatives, including Stephen Harper. Also on the panel is John Luxat, who is a past president of the Canadian Nuclear Society, and a current board member of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). Rounding out the panel are Joseph Doucet, an energy policy professor from the University of Alberta, and Harrie Vredenburg, a prof from the University of Calgary who has done work in the past for energy companies holding a direct stake in Bruce Power.

Missing from the panel were any environmental researchers, any health professionals and generally anyone who might be critical or provide a different perspective to that being presented by the nuclear industry. In fact, when Dr. Helen Caldicott, one of the world’s leading researchers on the health impacts of nuclear energy, was in Alberta recently she offered to meet with Harvie Andre and the entire panel, but her offer was refused by panel chair Andre…………….

The panel’s report heavily downplayed the environmental and health impacts of nuclear energy, focusing instead on nuclear energy as a low-carbon-emission source of electricity. To achieve that claim, the report ignores the full life-cycle emissions of nuclear power, which includes mining and transportation.

There was no mention in the report of peer-reviewed studies from Germany citing higher cancer rates in children living near nuclear plants, nor was there mention of the issue of radioactive emissions from reactors, including tritium. The risk assessment in the report was based on a small 800 megawatt reactor, despite the fact that what is being proposed in Alberta is up to 4000 megawatts of generation. The costs of nuclear generation were also downplayed, focusing only on the direct costs of generation and not including the full life-cycle costs of plants, including construction and decommissioning. These are the costs that have Ontario citizens still paying a premium on their monthly electricity bills to subsidize their nuclear power plants, which have never actually run at anywhere near 100 per cent of capacity…………..
………………… In short, the panel’s research report reads like a public relations document for nuclear power that would make Mr. Burns of The Simpsons proud. The government is now using this report as the foundation for its public consultation exercise…………………
……..Nuclear energy is an issue that demands public discussion, input and dialogue. It is an issue that requires an understanding of all the risks and implications. To tackle this issue by way of a glorified public relations campaign and consultations with predetermined results is an insult to Albertans, and does significant damage to the public interest