Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Join our peace research organization now!
Content
Throne speech signals Canada's support for new nuclear reactors as opposition builds
The Power Workers Union is still claiming that nuclear energy is clean... it's 2020 now
"false advertising complaint against the Canadian Nuclear Association under the federal Competition Act" https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2007/01/25/canadians_need_clear_answers_on_nuclear_power.html
Canadian Nuclear Association Representations to the Public Concerning the Cleanliness, Reliability and Affordability of Nuclear Power Generation Publication - Dec. 19, 2006 - letter and application for an inquiry to Canada Competition Bureau [https://www.pembina.org/reports/Competition.Act.Inquiry.Appl.dec.2006.pdf ]
Pembina report 2006: "The study finds that nuclear power, like other non-renewable energy sources, is associated with severe environmental impacts. In short, the use of nuclear power for electricity generation cannot be considered “clean.” Each stage of the nuclear energy production process generates large amounts of uniquely difficult-to-manage wastes that will require perpetual care, and that effectively push costs and risks arising from cur-rent energy consumption onto future generations. The process also has severe impacts on surface water and groundwater water quality via a range of radioactive and hazardous pollutants, and results in releases to the atmosphere of a wide range of criteria, radioactive and hazardous pollutants as well as GHGs.
In addition, the technology poses unique occupational and community health risks, along with security, accident and weapons proliferation risks not shared by any other energy source."
Source: "The Pembina Institute • Nuclear Power in Canada: An Examination of Risks, Impacts and Sustainability of extremely large volumes of radioactive wastes... " [https://www.pembina.org/reports/Nuclear_web.pdf]
"The nuclear power industry has invested a lot of money in marketing campaigns promoting nuclear power as “clean energy.” In 1998, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) ran advertisements claiming that nuclear power helps “protect the environment.”108 In response, fifteen environmental, consumer, public policy, and business organizations won an important judgment from the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (NAD). NAD ruled that the 1998 NEI ads were “misleading” and advised that they should be “discontinued.”109" ...
"The FTC warned the NEI that its advertising campaign, touting nuclear power as environmentally clean, was without substantiation and recommended that the NEI “take to heart the evaluation of its advertising that has been renderedby its peers.”112" ~ "False Promises: Debunking Nuclear Industry Propaganda" Nuclear Information and Resource Center. [Source: https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/falsepromises.pdf]
"First, the advertisements make the general claim that nuclear power is "environmentally clean," and that it supplies electricity ''without polluting the environment." Second, they slate that generation of nuclear power "produces no greenhouse gas emissions," and that nuclear plants "don't burn anything to produce electricity, so they don" pollute the air." Third, they claim that nuclear power generation does not pollute the water, stating that it "generates electricity without polluting air and water." The advertisements appeared in a number of publications."
~ Federal Trade Commission (FTC) & National Advertising Division of Better Business Bureau ("NAD'') https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/closing_letters/nuclear-energy-institute/991215nuclearenergyinstitute.pdf
PR Watch: "Nuclear Industry Ads Challenged as Misleading" 2006 - https://www.prwatch.org/spin/2006/12/5562/nuclear-industry-ads-challenged-misleading?qt-more=1 & Patrick Moore - "More Nukes? Moore Spin" https://www.prwatch.org/spin/2007/01/5595/more-nukes-moore-spin & "When Recycling Isn't: Lessons from a Nuclear Industry Conference" by Diane Farsetta May 9, 2008 https://www.prwatch.org/node/7316 "The industry's assertions, about gases thought to cause global warming, are ''overly broad claims that tell, at best, only a half-truth, and therefore have the capacity to deceive,'' the bureau said" ... "But the Nuclear Energy Institute continued running the ads" - https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/14/business/the-media-business-nuclear-power-industry-ads-called-potentially-deceptive.html SourceWatch - https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute#Criticism_for_saying_nuclear_is_clean
And the Canadian Nuclear Association CEO John Gorman is doing interviews and publishing op-ed's wherever he can. For those of me not of seen it, this is the link to the half hour CBC radio programWhat on Earth which aired on Sunday: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whatonearth/can-small-nuclear-reactors-help-canada-reach-its-net-zero-2050-goals-some-experts-are-skeptical-1.5792823 Please add comments to it, if you can, to refute Gorman's arguments (which are also the Liberal government's) that there is no path to net zero without nuclear energy, that SMRs are clean, safe and cost effective, that they are necessary to backup solar and wind power, and that nuclear energy "is one of the safest forms of electricity generation on earth."Adam Wynneadam.g.wynne@gmail.com
Copyright © 2021 Canadian Peace Research Association - All Rights Reserved.