HARDING: GREENWASHING NUCLEAR POWER: PA’S SURVEY

[Oscar]

GREENWASHING NUCLEAR POWER: PA’S SURVEY

March 20, 2009 By Jim Harding

BP Poll:
http://www.citypa.ca/portals/0/pdf/Comm ... 20Poll.pdf

Prince Albert just released the results of a survey of 382 residents about “green energy” and “nuclear power”. The headline to the story says “PA okay with nuclear plant”. A closer look suggests otherwise.
(See article Below - Ed.)

I have seen the questions. The survey was introduced as a “new economic development the city is working on to develop green energy”. This would create a positive mind-set. The first question says the “City is considering a new development to bring green energy to our area and to build a green industrial park…Do you agree with this support for green energy?” How could you not say “yes”?

The term “nuclear” is conspicuously missing. I have practiced social science methodology for decades, and, no conclusions about support for Bruce Power’s (BP) proposal to build nuclear plants on the North Saskatchewan River can be drawn from this. The next question “Do you believe nuclear power is green energy” is key, as it indicates whether support for the first question means support for nuclear power. But the implications were dismissed.

There are also questions to find out if residents are aware of BP’s nuclear business plan, what the “main benefit” will be, and whether the city “should be investigating attracting BP to the area”. There is also a question on the “main drawback” of the proposal, and ones identifying the person socio-demographically.

The survey was designed to identify “nuclear power” with “green energy”. But a significant number (37.3%) said nuclear power was NOT green energy and another 24.3% were undecided. The most significant finding is that only a minority (38.4%) have bought into BP’s promotions which ignore greenhouse gases (GHG) and radioactive wastes emitted all along the nuclear fuel chain. Support for “green energy” in PA cannot be taken to mean support for BP’s nuclear plans.

PA officials don’t want to be confused by “the facts”. The head of the Chamber of Commerce says “It’s a positive thing that people are interested in green energy” by which he means nuclear power. The Mayor says the city has the information it needs to make PA the “green capital of Saskatchewan”, by which he means bringing BP to the region. Only the city manager refers to the actual finding from the survey, but then dismisses this saying “There is a great deal of confusion over the green nature of nuclear power.”

Not really! Another story in the same (business) section of the Regina Leader Post which reprinted the story from the PA Herald, headed “Nuclear not GHG neutral: expert”, quotes the upcoming keynote speaker to a University of Regina conference as saying ‘it’s “extremely misleading” to call nuclear power a non-GHG-emitting energy source, as its proponents claim.”Its only zero-GHG when you look at it in a very (narrow) way.”’

The PA “survey” was designed to manufacture, not measure, public opinion. With such manipulation it’s little wonder that citizens are so cynical about political leaders. This nuclear promotional strategy has rightly earned the name “greenwashing”.

Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who recently spoke at public meetings along the North Saskatchewan River.

Fort San, 306-332-4492

---------------------------------

71 per cent surveyed in PA are okay with nuclear plant

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Technolog ... okay+with+
nuclear+plant/1395881/story.html

By Kristina Jarvis, Prince Albert Daily Herald March 17, 2009

PRINCE ALBERT -- A survey shows that a majority of Prince Albert and area residents support the city¹s efforts to try and attract a proposed nuclear plant to the area, said city officials.

"It gives us a high level of confidence," said Prince Albert Mayor Jim Scarrow. "We as a community are situated to capitalize on an opportunity today."

Demar Consulting Associates conducted the survey on behalf of the city to determine the level of support for a green industrial space and for the potential nuclear plant proposed by Bruce Power.

Prince Albert is currently one of three locations being considered for the plant, as well as Lloydminster and North Battleford. The survey also sought to find support for a green industrial zone, with the hope of attracting environmentally sound businesses to the area, such as biofuel and ethanol plants.

Surveyors conducted the poll over the phone in February, speaking with 382 residents who completed the survey. Demar said there was a 95 per cent confidence level in the survey and polled residents came from a 30 kilometre radius around Prince Albert.

One of the issues the survey showed was disagreement or uncertainty among respondents about the potential environmental benefits of nuclear energy, with 37.3 per cent saying nuclear energy is not green energy, 38.4 per cent saying yes it is, and 24.3 per cent undecided about nuclear energy¹s green potential.

"There is a great deal of confusion over the green nature of nuclear power," said Robert Cotterill, city manager.

More:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Technolog ... okay+with+
nuclear+plant/1395881/story.html

[Oscar]

Readers question city's poll on nuclear plant

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - March 19, 2009
The Prince Albert Daily Herald
Editor - The Herald,

Regarding the city's poll about a nuclear plant, it is significant that the company that did the survey pointed out in its conclusion that the survey did not directly ask whether people support the development of a nuclear facility.

Rather, the main question asked whether the city "should explore potential opportunities associated with attracting Bruce Power to develop in the Region." (Note the positive-sounding terms: "potential," "opportunities," "attracting," and "develop.")

The fact that most respondents were in favour of "investigating potential opportunities" is NOT the same as saying they would welcome a nuclear plant on their doorstep.

The polling company also noted the strong marketing campaign and presentation of nuclear power in a very positive light in the few weeks before the survey. The company aptly concluded, "Had there been anti-nuclear messages spread during the polling, public opinion may not have been so strong."

It is also telling that there was "more mixed response" to the question, "Do you believe that nuclear power is green energy?" Almost 62 per cent of the respondents either said No or were undecided.

Nuclear energy is not sustainable energy and is not the solution that an aggressive marketing campaign is making it out to be. It is extremely expensive (the last plant completed in Ontario was billions of dollars over budget) and it poses environmental and health risks. Then there is the question of what to do with the dangerous waste it produces. As of 2000, Canada had 35,000 tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste and nowhere to put it (David Suzuki Foundation). Why would we compound this looming problem?

There are also concerns - with projected water shortages - about the huge volumes of water required, and with water quality itself. As nuclear power plants age, there are safety issues such as emission of radioactive material and possible contamination of drinking water (the Pickering leak in 1996 released radioactive tritium into Lake Ontario). What about the costs of accidents, cleanup, waste disposal, and plant decommissioning?

Nuclear energy is also not reliable. Reactors already built have required refurbishing costs equal to the original construction cost after only half of their projected operating life.

We should not be spending exorbitant amounts on nuclear energy when there are far less expensive, safer, more reliable, and truly sustainable energy options such as wind power and solar energy, which can be employed very quickly and which also create many jobs.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we can, and must, do better.

Therese Jelinski
Prince Albert

-------------------------------

Stories often pro-nuclear
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The Prince Albert Daily Herald
Editor, The Herald - March 19, 2009

In the past year, I have found that most stories depicting nuclear power have been decidedly one-sided and often pro-nuclear. In today's front page (Tuesday, March 17), the headline, "Getting go-ahead for nuclear" was disingenuous and misleading.

If 38.4% of respondents say nuclear energy is "green", how is that a majority? In the same paragraph, it's apparent that 61.6% of the people weren't sure if nuclear is "green."

I worked for a few years at the Key Lake mine and I can state unequivocally that there is not a whole lot of green going on in the extraction of uranium to fuel these type of plants.

In a StarPhoenix survey done last year, residents were asked in the Saskatoon area if they supported a nuclear option; most said yes.

However, when the question was if they supported a nuclear plant near Lake Diefenbaker, the vast majority opposed the idea. Residents must be asked the same question for Prince Albert.

If the question was, "Do you support a nuclear power plant west of Prince Albert along the North Saskatchewan River for the needed water source and less than 30 kilometres from the city?" the answer would be interesting.

I would like privately-owned Bruce Power to answer a few questions before taxpayer funds are spent on this venture.

Will BP pay for the environmental impact assessment?

Will BP cover all the infrastructure, safeguard our water supplies, pay for the new power lines, fund it all without tax incentives and taxpayer subsidies, have a place to store the spent radioactive fuel and will they pay hundreds of millions into a fund to decommission the whole plant once it becomes inefficient in the not too distant future?

The taxpayers of Ontario are not so fond of BP and we should all find out why. Also, am I the only one who noticed that the paper is quoting people stating "green and nuclear" in the same sentence as if that were fact? I take it the Daily Herald is in the bag but for those still unsure of the notion of nuclear energy, you are a disservice to the people reading the paper when you are so biased.

Theodore Merasty
Prince Albert

----------------

Reader wants nuclear 'pants', too

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The Prince Albert Daily Herald
Editor, The Herald - March 19, 2009

A sub headline in the PA Herald on March 17 reads, "Majority of area residents say they are in favour of nuclear pants (sic)."

Now there's a picture ... the mayor, city manager, P.A. chamber chairman and city councillors with their nuclear pants on.

In the light of this news article I would urge people to get the full survey and read it. It is available on the city website. There are two passages in the survey that are of particular note.

They profoundly challenge the validity of the survey results and speak to the need for a thorough and inclusive public discussion.

In the preamble, the consultants state that, "The opinion poll occurred at a time when the public had the opportunity to reflect on information presented by Bruce Power when responding to the opinion poll."

In the conclusion of the survey, this thought is expanded. The consultants caution "it should be noted that the reports done by the local newspaper several weeks prior to the start of the survey (which took the form of questions answered by Bruce Power officials) presented nuclear power in a very positive light.

"It is not our intent to contradict the information, however, only to state that in the presence of a strong marketing campaign, public opinion favours nuclear development. Had there been anti-nuclear messages spread during the polling, public opinion may not have been so strong."

I am skeptical of an opinion poll that is taken shortly after a "strong marketing campaign" that "presented nuclear power in a very positive light." I would be less skeptical of the same survey results after a full, open and inclusive public discussion.

I may even be ready to get fitted for a pair of nuclear pants.

Alan Loustel,
Prince Albert