Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Brishti Basu reports on the ill effects of WorkSafeBC's decision to push people back to work while they continue to suffer from long COVID. And Alex Skopic calls out the CDC's choice to direct people back to work while they're still infected with COVID-19, while Reina Sultan talks to experts who point out the obvious and avoidable risks to others including workers and customers arising from that guideline. 

- Anita Hofschneider writes about the looming prospect that the effects of a climate breakdown will include the exposure of nuclear waste. And Mari Yamaguchi reports that 13 years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, authorities still have little idea of the condition of the damaged reactors or the status of the fuel waiting inside. 

- Meanwhile, Joseph Winters reports on the push to ban detergent pods due to their propensity to release microplastics into the environment - as well as the reality that the problem with microplastics generated by clothing goes far deeper. 

- Mouhamad Rachini discusses how teachers across Canada are barely getting by (while administrators have put more and more unqualified babysitters in charge of children as a substitute for providing adequate education resources). And Megan Ogilvie highlights how Ontario has been driving family doctors out of the profession while funneling money toward impersonal corporate substitutes. 

- Finally, Paul Willcocks rightly questions why a supposedly austerian Vancouver mayor and council are funneling tens of millions of dollars to a single private school. Jennifer Lee reports on the $97 million price tag to reverse the effects of the UCP's ideological decision to push lab services into the corporate sector. And Adam King points out the much higher cost of Doug Ford's attempt to suppress public-sector wages. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Shiloh Payne reports on new numbers from the World Health Organization showing that COVID-19 is responsible for nearly 15 million excess deaths around the globe. Liji Thomas writes about the widespread harm caused by long COVID in the U.S. And Neetu Garcha interviews Sanjiv Gandhi about the plight of children facing severe illness and death from COVID and other (likely related) infectious diseases. 

- James Powell discusses how Doug Ford's developer-heavy housing task force is utterly failing to address the "affordability" part of its mandate. Rachel Cohen writes about the concerted attack on housing first measures by conservatives bent on preventing public policy aimed at getting people into permanent homes. And Wayne Mantyka reports on the fire at a Regina tent community as a predictable outcome of focusing on dismantling alternatives rather than ensuring housing is available. 

- Deena Winter reports on cluster of cancer and other fallout from 3M's dumping of chemical waste into drinking water supplies. And Sabranth Subramanian reports on the massive public liabilities left behind as a result of the UK's Sellafield nuclear site. 

- Landon Wilcock discusses the desire of oil and gas workers to shift to industries which have a future - along with the best means to get them there. And Brett Forester reports on the call from MPs to ensure the resource extraction sector takes responsibility for its contribution to violence against Indigenous women. 

- Zak Vescera points out how labour regulation hasn't caught up to the systematic exploitation of workers by gig platforms.  

- Finally, Martin Lukacs and Emma Paling report on the deep organizing which enabled Ontario workers to push back against some of the Ford government's excesses. 

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Jon Henley writes that COVID is surging across Europe as governments and people alike ignore desperate warnings not to let their guard down. And Eric Topol writes about the reality that reinfection produces even worse outcomes than initial exposure - even as governments have largely abandoned any effort either to minimize spread through public health measures, or to reduce individual impacts through further vaccines. 

- Alex Cosh discusses how more and more Canadians are going hungry while corporate profits soar. 

- Fiona Harvey reports on research showing the need for consistently accurate climate messaging for people to understand the urgency of our climate crisis. David Moscrop writes about the stark contrast between Justin Trudeau's spin on climate change and his government's consistent catering to the fossil fuel sector. And Jan Gorski argues that Canada is more than capable of meeting its climate commitments if it stops operating in denial of the steps needed to get there. 

- Meanwhile, John Michael McGrath points out how the determination of where to bury nuclear waste comes down to a decision as to whose water supplies will be put at risk of radioactive contamination if all doesn't go as planned.  

- Finally, Ken Rubin discusses how Canada's access to information system has fallen far short of the promise of open government due to the combination of overly broad exemptions and governments' cynical refusal to comply with either the spirit or letter of access legislation. And Elizabeth McMillan reports on the results of the Mass Casualty Commission's review showing how the RCMP endangered lives by withholding crucial information from the public in the midst of a shooting spree.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Eric Topol charts how vaccines to date have continued to provide essential protection against the Omicron COVID variant, even as people with an actual interest in public health recognize that they don't mean the pandemic is over. Ng Keng Gene discusses how Singapore is launching a major study to determine how to avoid the spread of infectious diseases in buildings. Julie Henry and James Tapper report on the UK's inevitable conclusion that it needs to start reapplying public health rules after it's let yet another wave cause unacceptable damage. And Ian Reifowitz highlights how basic precautions against a continued public health threat are in fact the only hope we have for freedom.

- But Andrew Nikiforuk offers a depressingly accurate depiction of the decision to abandon the fight for health and well-being on the part of far too many Canadian leaders. And Justin Ling and Al Jazeera staff each report on the #FluTruxKlan's appalling arrival in Ottawa.

- Karen Hamilton discusses the importance of ensuring that the end to fossil fuel subsidies in Canada is swift and decisive, rather than getting dragged into the usual pattern of delay associated with any challenge to corporate giveaways. And Drew Anderson examines the massive costs and dubious returns of carbon capture and storage projects - particularly when combined with attempts to shift emissions from oil consumption off the books.

- Finally, Sarah Lawryniuk explores the current status of plans to make the burial of nuclear waste near Ignace, Ontario into yet another high-priced attempt to hide the side effects of extractive energy.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Larry Elliott writes that continuing inequality looms as an obstacle to meaningful climate action. But David Love offers a reminder that climate apartheid is the likely end result of failing to rein in carbon pollution.

- Christopher Smart outlines the OECD's plans to regulate how multinational corporations are taxed. But Alex Cobham warns that the current structure looks to cause increased complexity without actually reducing the availability of tax havens.

- Chris Maisano points out the glaring disconnect between a U.S. population which is increasingly supportive of unions, and public policy which has been designed to prevent workers from actually organizing. And Cole Stangler discusses the importance of turning an increasing number of moments of activism - such as the French general strike - into longer-term membership and involvement.

- PressProgress warns that the same mining companies who have been allowed to exploit our environment without cleaning up their messes now have a plan to profit off of remediating their own damage. Janet French reports on the UCP's plan to start allowing oil operators to dump water from tailings ponds into Alberta's waterways. And Scott Miller reports on the Saugeen Ojibway Nation's resounding vote against taking on the risk of Canada's nuclear waste. 

- Finally, Bruce Campbell discusses the origins of both the Lac-Mégantic catastrophe and the failure of Boeing's 737 Max planes in self-regulation by businesses more interested in cutting costs than averting foreseeable tragedies.

Those who will not hear

Since the Saskatchewan Party tried to push nuclear power when first elected to office, it's heard from the public about their grave (and justified) concerns.

Overall, while there is some support for nuclear power generation, the overwhelming response to this public consultation was that nuclear power generation should not be a choice for Saskatchewan, whether it is intended to serve the needs of Saskatchewan people only, or for a combination of Saskatchewan people and other provinces or states.

It's heard from international financial markets that nuclear development is seen as a major risk factor.

Moody’s Investors Services warns in its new report — “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing” — that it may view nuclear construction plans as a negative.

Moody’s worries that investment in new nuclear is so costly that it amounts to a “bet the farm” strategy. It increases business risk and operating risk.

It's heard from other Canadian provinces about the lack of any economic basis for nuclear power. 

The Ontario Energy Board has indicated that any price higher than $3,600 per kilowatt of power capacity would be uneconomical when costed against alternatives such as natural gas and renewable energy options. Bruce Power has indicated its intention to build two 1,000 megawatt reactors in Saskatchewan at a cost of between $8 and $10 billion. Using Bruce Power’s conservative price estimate, its proposal works out to approximately $4,000 per kilowatt – a price that exceeds the Ontario Energy Board’s economical cutoff.

It's seen other countries phase out nuclear altogether, while facing a reckoning from decades of generating hazardous waste without a plan to manage it.

When it comes to the big questions plaguing the world's scientists, they don't get much larger than this.

Where do you safely bury more than 28,000 cubic meters -- roughly six Big Ben clock towers -- of deadly radioactive waste for the next million years? 

This is the "wicked problem" facing Germany as it closes all of its nuclear power plants in the coming years, according to Professor Miranda Schreurs, part of the team searching for a storage site. 

Experts are now hunting for somewhere to bury almost 2,000 containers of high-level radioactive waste. The site must be beyond rock-solid, with no groundwater or earthquakes that could cause a leakage. 

The technological challenges -- of transporting the lethal waste, finding a material to encase it, and even communicating its existence to future humans -- are huge.

And faced with all those voices confirming the folly of pushing nuclear power, Scott Moe's response has been...to barge ahead based on the belief he doesn't have to listen to anybody.

On buried dangers

There have been a few recent reports dealing with issues surrounding the Northern Village of Pinehouse - including a systematic refusal to answer access to information requests to which continued at last notice, the disappearance of the village's website and public records, an inspection recommending the removal of Pinehouse's mayor and a councillor which has turned into a formal inquiry and audit, and the recusal of Finance Minister Donna Harpauer from all discussions due to a close personal connection to the councillor in question.

But most of the media discussion of the village's current circumstances avoids a crucial piece of background information - even as the mayor who has also been recommended for removal identifies the significance of the issue, without recognizing that it provides no excuse for thumbing his nose at legal obligations.

The relationship between Pinehouse and the nuclear industry has long been the source of justified concern. The same leadership now dismissing any obligations of transparent governance include the same people behind a sketchy deal which included millions of dollars in payments from Areva and Cameco in exchange for a cover-up of the social and environmental impacts of uranium mining.

And the village's leadership tried to volunteer Pinehouse for a nuclear waste disposal site through communications - which were exposed through what was then at least a marginally functional access to information system under the current administrtion. The attempt to become a dumping ground for radioactive waste was ultimately ruled out due to a lack of support in the community.

So let's turn the spin around.

Does it make sense that Pinehouse would be uniquely unable to meet its access to information obligations - both compared to its own history and compared to other Northern and rural communities - even as it receives substantial funding from the uranium industry to cover what would normally be municipal expenses?

Does it make sense that Pinehouse would be unable to meet basic access to information requirements, but have enough spare resources lying around to provide free accommodations to cabinet ministers whenever they see fit to stop by? And wouldn't cabinet ministers themselves be expected to notice the problem with accepting that type of gift before somebody else identifies it?

Ultimately, Pinehouse looks only to be a particularly vivid example of the Saskatchewan Party's governing mindset in both its service of industry over people, and its contempt for accountability. And everybody rightly looking at Pinehouse and asking how its administration can be left in place should be asking the same about the province.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Lest anybody think the Harper Cons' combination of dishonesty and secrecy is limited to political payoffs, Blacklock's reveals (PDF) that they subsidized the shipment of corporate jobs out of Canada - and didn't deign to inform the public that the program existed until seven years after the fact.

- And APTN reports on the Cons' suppression of tens of thousands of pages of documents detailing the causes and effects of underfunding of First Nations child welfare.

- But then, both stories also serve as important examples of the value of detailed research into government activity. And Nicky Woolf credits the Guardian for taking up that cause around the globe - making it an increasingly valuable journalistic resource even in the U.S.:

Figures given exclusively to The Atlantic show that -- according to internal analytics -- June 10, the day after Snowden revealed his identity on The Guardian's website, was the biggest traffic day in their history, with an astonishing 6.97 million unique browsers. Within a week of publishing the NSA files, The Guardian website has seen a 41 percent increase in U.S. desktop unique visitors (IP addresses loading the desktop site) and a 66 percent rise in mobile traffic. On June 10, for the first time in the paper's history, their U.S. traffic was higher than their UK traffic.
...
The Guardian also has a reputation for solid investigative journalism. The NSA story isn't their first rodeo. They were one of three publications to work closely with WikiLeaks to process the mountains of data leaed by Bradley Manning in 2010. When Rupert Murdoch's vast tabloid the News of the World was finally caught phone-hacking, it was The Guardian that brought it down, doggedly fighting for the story for two years against a storm of legal threats and denials from News International. Before that, the paper was known for having faced down a storm of litigation to prove that the former MP Jonathan Aitken had lied before a court, giving them probably their best-known front page, featuring the headline "He Lied And Lied And Lied".

I ask Gibson what's coming up for Guardian US, when the Snowden dust finally settles. "We will add commentators, we will add reporting, we will add verticals, we will continue to grow, and we'll work with commercial partners and do tech and business and all the things that we want to be," she says. The publication is doubling down on its investigative presence in the States as well: Investigative journalist Paul Lewis is joining the paper's Washington bureau from the London office this month, and Nick Davies, the reporter whose two years of digging brought about the phone-hacking scandal, is joining the New York team later in the year.

- John Ahni Schertow offers a look at the process being used to push a nuclear waste depository on the community of Pinehouse - and the rightful response from community members.

- Finally, Kathleen Rodgers and Darcy Ingram criticize the Cons' lack of interest in any youth involvement in politics other than as paid flacks and trained seals.

The Sask Party Uranium Response: "We Don't Care What You Think"

I've posted previously about the Sask Party's latest declaration of its intention to push nuclear development regardless of what Saskatchewan's citizens might think. But it's worth looking in somewhat more detail at just how thoroughly the Wall government has rejected the public's input into nuclear policy. So let's compare the findings of Dan Perrins' consultation report to the Sask Party's response.

Here are Perrins' findings on uranium exploration and mining:

There were 519 responses that dealt specifically with the province’s approach to the exploration and mining of uranium. Nearly three-quarters (70%, n=364) were against the exploration and mining of uranium, while one-quarter (25%, n=128) were supportive (see Figure 44). An additional 5% (n=27) either did not know and wanted more information, or did not state whether they were opposed or supportive.
...
More specifically, in terms of those opposed to exploration and mining, most (41%, n=215) said that they were opposed to any further expansion of exploration and mining of uranium.

Which naturally leads to the following response from the Wall government on the subject:

The government’s general strategic direction on uranium includes...(a)ctively supporting uranium mining and exploration...

(The government) will examine its program incentives and competitiveness of its royalties, work with the federal government on a more thorough review of licence applications and on implementation of the recommendations of the federal competition policy review panel. It will work with industry on the infrastructure needed for new mine development.

So the public says "stop", the Sask Party's response is "barge ahead". Which of course looks to be a common theme when it comes to Wall's nuclear agenda.

Nuclear research and isotope production was the closest category in Perrins' review, but still one where opposition to nuclear development trumped support:

About four in ten (42%, n=174) responses opposed uranium research, training, and development. However, one-third of responses (32%, n=136) were in favour of going ahead with further uranium or nuclear research, training, and development, as shown in Figure 54. Another sizable number of responses (19%, n=81) spoke directly to the creation of isotopes for medical purposes, either without specifying how they would be created or by saying they wanted to see isotopes produced without nuclear fission. A small number of responses (2%, n=9) were against the production of medical isotopes for any reason.

But needless to say, the Sask Party decided to respond to a clear split in public opinion by utterly ignoring one side of the question:

The government’s general strategic direction on uranium includes...(e)ncouraging investment in nuclear research, development and training opportunities, specifically in the areas of mining, neutron science, isotopes, small scale reactor design, and enrichment...

The government...(supports) the concept of a nuclear research centre of excellence and expanded mining and exploration programs at academic institutions. It supports determining investment priorities in targeted areas of nuclear research and in partnering with the federal government on a research reactor that would produce medical isotopes.

In contrast, the question of nuclear waste and storage was one where a massive majority of Saskatchewanians interested in the issue registered their disapproval:

Approximately 900 responses dealt with nuclear waste disposal and storage, which includes references to used fuel or nuclear waste. The majority of these responses (86%, n=769) from people participating in the consultation process were strongly against nuclear waste disposal and storage in Saskatchewan, as shown in Figure 21. However, some responses (12%, n=103) did support waste disposal and storage in Saskatchewan.

Which of course means that the Wall government...wants to encourage future development as soon as anybody's willing to suggest it, contrary to the views of six out of every seven people who have an opinion about it:

The government’s general strategic direction on uranium includes...reserving decisions on supporting Saskatchewan communities interested in
hosting nuclear waste management facilities to when such proposals are advanced in a regulatory process...

And then there's the area most discussed by Saskatchewan citizens in making their submissions to Perrins:

Just over 1,400 responses dealt specifically with nuclear power generation in the province. Most petitions and form letters received centred on this area.

Of these 1,401 responses, 84% (n=1,183) were generally against nuclear power generation for the province, whether that included power generation for export or not (as seen in Figure 5). Many indicated that they did not want a nuclear power plant in their area of the province. Over one in ten (14%, n=190) were in favour of nuclear power, and 2% (n=28) of responses were either not given or expressed indecision.

But naturally, the Sask Party has responded to that red light on nuclear power by telling SaskPower to push ahead:

The government’s general strategic direction on uranium includes...(d)irecting SaskPower to continue including nuclear power in the range of sustainable energy options available for additional baseload generation capacity in the medium and long term after 2020.

So never mind that a strong majority of Saskatchewan citizens with any interest in nuclear issues at all took the time to express their disagreement with nuclear power. Having received about as compelling a public statement of objection as one could possibly imagine, their reaction has been...to tell those who made their views known that they can go pound sand, as they'll be ordering SaskPower to ignore the will of the people.

Of course, there are other serious issues with how the Sask Party is handling the nuclear issue. As a noteworthy example, having tied Perrins' hands in the type of recommendations he was allowed to make, they're now trying to frame public debate around the very UDP recommendations which were called into question by the public's input.

But most glaring problem is the fact that the Wall government has just declared that it couldn't care less what the public thinks about nuclear development. And as long as the public's views are being tossed out the window so casually, there's plenty of reason for concern that the public's interests will fare no better in Wall's decision-making.

Messages received

While we're on the subject of public input from concerned Saskatchewan citizens, it's worth noting that there still seems to be some information available for public release from this summer's uranium consultation process. While Dan Perrins' report referenced thousands of submissions (most of them against nuclear development), it appears that only a few dozen organizational submissions along with full meeting recordings and notes have been released in full. And as far as I can tell, that leaves hundreds of written and electronic submissions getting included only in Perrins' statistical analysis rather than being made available for public debate.

So it's worth asking: is there any plan in the works to make the balance of the submissions public (with personal information removed of course) to ensure that all of the ideas counted by Perrins are also available for public review? And if not, might a FOIP request be in order?

The reviews are in

Murray Mandryk:

For however much Dan Perrins's report on the Uranium Development Partnership's (UDP) public consultation did or didn't reflect Saskatchewan's true feelings on nuclear development, one thing should be learned from this process.

Don't let Energy Minister Bill Boyd teach you how to drive.
...
(I)t might have been Boyd's motoring analogy that was the real car wreck Tuesday. To be begin with, a yellow light doesn't mean "proceed with caution". It means "prepare to stop". (Let us all hope and pray that Premier Brad Wall opts for the safer option of teaching his own kids to drive on the province's back roads, rather than assign the task to Boyd).

Second, even "prepare to stop" would be an exceedingly understated interpretation of the submissions delivered to Perrins that screamed at the government to slam on the brakes.

Sask Party Plans to Run a Red Light

Bill Boyd desperately wants to pretend that Dan Perrins' report on public opinions about uranium development in Saskatchewan was anything but a clear repudiation of the Wall government's determination to build a nuke-dependent Saskatchewan:

"When I look at this report, it's neither a green light nor a red light for future uranium development," said Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd in a news release.

"It's more like a yellow light — take any next steps with caution. Saskatchewan people are saying — take your time, get it right, consider all the options. I think that's wise counsel."

So what kind of language does Boyd consider to be an instruction to keep forcing nuclear development on the province? Let's take a look at some highlights from the report...

Theme 1: Opposition to Nuclear Power Generation
Overall, while there is some support for nuclear power generation, the overwhelming response to this public consultation was that nuclear power generation should not be a choice for Saskatchewan, whether it is intended to serve the needs of Saskatchewan people only, or for a combination of Saskatchewan people and other provinces or states.

Now, it may be worth following up to determine whether Boyd was sheltered from the actual outcome of the consultations in order to be able to make that kind of statement with a straight face. But it's hard to see how a document that explicitly says the overwhelming response wants to rule out nuclear development can be taken as evidence that it should be pursued by anybody who isn't either utterly clueless, or determinedly dishonest.

What about the other pieces of the Wall government's nuclear agenda? The other live issue is Wall's proposal to slap up a reactor to produce nuclear isotopes - but that too was rejected by a wide margin as citizens pointed out that isotopes can be generated through other means:

Most people were opposed to uranium research, development, and training. They pointed to opportunities in alternative energies, to the desire to avoid non-green technologies including uranium, and to the costs of doing research (including opportunity costs) in this field.

People were interested in the topic of medical isotopes and expressed a need for more information on isotope production and use. Responses were divided on this issue. In fact, many people who expressed support for the production of medical isotopes stipulated it should occur without the use of nuclear fission.

In fact, exactly twice as many respondents expressed support for producing isotopes by means other than fission than for producing isotopes generally (a margin of 54-27) - reflecting the greater number of opponents than supporters on the "research/isotope" section in general.

Perhaps most interesting, though, is Perrins' chart of the common themes within submissions received (page 32 of the report). Of the 2,263 submissions, well over 60% (1401 in total) set out opposition to nuclear power [see update below], with the next most common themes being concern about health, safety and the environment; opposition to nuclear waste storage; concern about the costs of uranium development; support for renewal energy sources; concern about the UDP report itself; and opposition to mining and exploration.

That was the last theme listed with the total number of mentions at 519. But Perrins' text includes nine more themes presumably based on the same type of ranking process, and none of those were actually supportive of nuclear development either.

That's particularly noteworthy in light of the best efforts of the business community to hijack the process before throwing a tantrum over the fact that people were actually being heard. Indeed, I'm surprised that there wasn't enough of an astroturfing effort to at least push some nuclear propaganda into the top 16 messages taken from the consultation process.

But in the final result, it's hard to imagine the consultation process producing a more clear signal to the Sask Party that they need to stop trying to foist the nuclear industry on Saskatchewan. And the fact that they're so blatantly ignoring what Saskatchewan's citizens have had to say should speak volumes as to how likely they are to "get it right" given any opening to pursue their nuclear agenda.

Update/correction: On further review, I note that the numbers listed within each theme in Perrins' summary don't necessarily fit the heading: for example, the 1,401 listed under "opposition to nuclear power" actually include submissions in favour of nuclear power. But the strength of opposition to nuclear power is even more striking when that breakdown (84%-14% within the 1,401) is taken into consideration: an absolute majority of all submissions made stated their opposition to nuclear power, while a paltry 8% offered support for it.

Someday, this could all be ours...

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

After decades of national debate over what to do with spent nuclear fuel, and with no resolution in sight, the Kewaunee nuclear power plant in northeastern Wisconsin finally ran out of storage space inside the plant.

So over the past week, Kewaunee workers have begun storing radioactive waste in casks on the grounds of the reactor, a short distance from the shores of Lake Michigan.

After a practice run a few weeks ago, workers moved spent fuel into the first of the 25-ton, 16-foot-long casks and then transferred the cask into a concrete vault outside the building Aug. 22, said Mark Kanz, spokesman for the Kewaunee Power Station. A second cask was transferred Thursday.
...
The dwindling storage space in the spent-fuel pool inside the Kewaunee plant was among the factors that led Wisconsin utilities to sell the reactor to Dominion several years ago. Dominion then proceeded with plans to build the dry-cask storage system and applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to keep the plant running until 2033.

Point Beach experienced a brief fire during a spent-fuel transfer attempt in 1996. The hydrogen fire inside one of the casks produced enough force to blow a 3-ton lid 3 inches into the air. That incident resulted in an investigation and a $325,000 fine against Wisconsin Electric, which owned the plant at the time.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission later required Wisconsin Electric, which now operates under the trade name We Energies, to use a different kind of storage container for the used but still radioactive nuclear fuel.

Some Wisconsin environmental groups have been critical of nuclear power in part because of the onsite storage of radioactive waste on the grounds of the two plants.

On sideshows

Shorter Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, which is now apparently criticizing the Sask Party's consultation process for the fact that anti-nuclear voices aren't being shut out as they were from the UDP:

We're all about the "informed debate", as long as that means everybody mindlessly reciting our talking points.

Update: And it's particularly worth noting the different reasons for concern about the consultation process presented in the article. Clean Green Saskatchewan is rightly worried that the perspectives offered at the consultation meetings won't be heard - making for a stark contrast with the Chamber of Commerce, which apparently figures that if Bruce Power has nice things to say about its own proposal, then there's no reason why the mere citizens of Saskatchewan should have any say in the matter.

Oh goody

Apparently the fact that the public will be treated to pro-nuclear propaganda as the starting point for discussion in the Wall government's consultation process left open more risk of authentic public debate than some were prepared to tolerate. So to make sure that only the pro-nuclear side gets a voice, the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce with an assist from CanWest is now trumpeting a 26-page FAQ which helpfully cites sources like Bruce Power, Bruce Power (via the Uranium Development Partnership) and Bruce Power (through the Canadian Nuclear Association) to support the view that nuclear power is all about magical rainbow sparkle ponies, such that we should turn our public treasury over to Bruce Power. And needless to say, it's encouraging people to take over the public consultations with its talking points - since pro-nuclear domination of both the UDP and the stakeholder meetings apparently isn't seen as tilting the playing field quite far enough.

We'll see how long it takes for time at the microphone to be allotted based on the results of a "Why I Like Nuclear Power" essay contest. But while Dan Perrins may have had the best of intentions in taking on the task of chairing what was nominally supposed to be a real public consultation process, at this point the exercise can't be described as anything of the sort.

(Edit: added wording & fixed typo.)

On slanted reporting

Before going into detail about the the UDP's nuclear wish list, let's start with a few high-level observations.

To begin with, let's note the extended time frames involved in the UDP's assumptions and recommendations - and particularly how the report encourages snap decisions which would have serious ramifications extending tens or hundreds of years into the future.

When it comes to nuclear power generation, the report can't avoid acknowledging that the plant construction is prohibitively expensive up front compared to any other alternative. Which means that any attempt to justify nuclear power based on cost relies on a 50+ year time frame for plant operation.

But the UDP report which actually sees Saskatchewan's uranium reserves running out within that time frame. And when that possibility is combined with the suggestion that nuclear development will continue to expand elsewhere, there's little reason to think that operating costs will actually stay at currently-assumed levels - calling into question the conclusion that lower costs over time could justify the massive construction costs associated with a nuclear reactor.

Meanwhile, the time factor involved in the report's recommendation to encourage Saskatchewan communities to become nuclear waste depositories is even more striking. It surely isn't by accident that the report notes that a community wouldn't want to risk any existing resources by placing the site near them, and that any future development near the waste facility would likely be ruled out over a time period of centuries.

But even from the starting point that a waste disposal site would severely restrict any future development for the community involved, the report is wholly bullish on the idea. Which results in its recommendation that the province should push the efforts of any municipality which holds its nose long enough to ask to be the home site - with no apparent concern for the possibility that the decision might be a dangerous one in the longer term.

A second major theme worth pointing out about the report is its consistent focus on theory rather than practice - perhaps best epitomized by its statement on the role of the CNSC:

In Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is responsible for ensuring the public, the environment, and workers are protected from any potential effects of nuclear energy and that all international industry guidelines are followed.

The CNSC operates as an independent agency of the Federal Government that reports to Parliament (via the Minister of Natural Resources). The agency has no role in promoting nuclear power and is split into a decision-making Commission Tribunal and a
staff organization including technical experts in nuclear safety and controls.

One of the main responsibilities of the Commission Tribunal is to run the nuclear licensing process. Before being granted a license or renewal, licensees are required to prove to the CNSC that their facility or activity is acceptably safe. The CNSC approach to safety assumes that nothing is 100 percent risk free, but that risk can be minimized through multiple layers of verifiable protection. When a facility is licensed, the staff organization supports the compliance activities (among other things) and ensures that domestic nuclear operators provide quarterly reports highlighting radio-active discharges.

Needless to say, anybody who's followed the actual operations of the CNSC over the past few years should have some serious questions about that description. To wit: what of Linda Keen? Political meddling in nuclear regulation? Discharges going unreported until well after the fact?

In the UDP report, the reality of how the CNSC has actually operated is conveniently whitewashed from the picture in favour of a depiction of the CNSC as a fully independent guarantor of nuclear safety. And the problem with a presentation of the CNSC is idealized terms rather than realistic ones isn't only limited to the current Con government. In general, any recommendation that the province should rely on federal actors to ensure nuclear safety is bound to carry some serious risk based on the federal government of the day - and the fact that we now have about the most problematic possible combination between the two levels of government only helps to highlight the point.

It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate from there as to how the UDP's depictions of other parties involved may similarly be based on wishful thinking rather than reality. And it's hard to imagine a starting point less compatible with a realistic assessment of the risks and opportunity costs involved in focusing on nuclear development.

That leads nicely into the last point which I'll make for now: while the report presents plenty of theoretical job and GDP figures associated with its proposals, it utterly ignores the question of how money and resources can otherwise be applied. Which may be entirely consistent with the UDP's mandate to cheerlead for the nuclear industry, but renders the report utterly useless as an assessment of nuclear development as compared to any other priority.

Bunker mentality

There's definitely something "historic" happening in Saskatchewan politics. But the story which really figures to change the province's course has nothing at all to do with the income tax levels that the Sask Party wants to highlight.

Instead, the real action is set to start behind closed doors, where the Sask Party is handing the nuclear industry $3 million to put together a wish list for nuclear development:

Saskatchewan has named the president of a company that is looking at building a nuclear power plant in the province to a panel that is to advise the government on how to develop its uranium and nuclear industry.

Duncan Hawthorne, president of Bruce Power Inc., is one of 12 people who were appointed to the Uranium Development Partnership on Monday by Crown Corporations Minister Ken Cheveldayoff and Enterprise Minister Lyle Stewart.

Bruce Power is currently conducting a feasibility study into building a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan, the world's largest producer of uranium...

Bruce Power operates six Candu reactors at its electricity generating stations about 250 km northwest of Toronto. The Ontario-based nuclear power company is a joint venture of Saskatoon-based uranium giant Cameco Corp. (TSX:CCO) TransCanada Corp. (TSX:TRP) of Calgary and other partners.

Other members named to the partnership include Armand Laferrere, president of Areva Canada, a France-based international nuclear power corporation, Jerry Grandey, president and CEO of Cameco and Alex Pourbaix, president of energy at TransCanada Corp...

The partnership's work will not include getting input from the public about uranium or nuclear power. The government pledged it will consult with the public after the final report is released.

See the full list of participants here.

Of course, this is far from the first time the Wall government has tasked big business with the job of deciding for itself how the province should be run with no input from such fringe interests as the general public. And judging from the Sask Party's track record, it surely won't be the last.

But the radioactive partnership looks to be the first time the Sask Party has actively promoted any one sector over another rather than merely favouring corporatist ideas generally. And it surely can't be a good sign that the Wall government's first choice of industries to favour with public money is not only probably the most controversial they could have picked, but easily the one which carries the most severe potential dangers if non-industry interests are ignored.

Biased foresight

Shorter Michael Burns, former Con-appointed chair of AECL:
Of course the federal government didn't have to push aside the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission temporarily in response to last month's nuclear isotope shortage. In fact, it could have avoided the problem entirely if it had followed my advice to gut the CNSC permanently and long ago.

Hide and seek

It may not make for much solace for Canadians who don't want to see their country signed on to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, particularly given the mystery surrounding what the GNEP actually entails. But at least the Harper government isn't succeeding in any effort to bury the announcement under both the Airbus scandal and other nuclear developments. Instead, the minister responsible is showing the Cons' weakness by going into hiding to avoid the questions the government presumably doesn't want to have to answer:

The Conservative government was pilloried Friday for committing Canada to a new international nuclear club without any public or political debate.

Opposition MPs demanded that Canada's participation in the U.S.-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership be debated and voted upon in the Commons after learning by press release that Canada was joining the group.

The surprise announcement came late Thursday after months of government stone-walling and denials.

"It is great news for Canada to be part of this partnership," Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn told the Commons on Friday.

But Lunn then refused to meet with reporters to discuss the matter, staying in a private Commons lobby for more than an hour while media waited outside.

Eventually, his spokeswoman emerged to say the minister had answered all relevant questions during the daily question period and had nothing more to add.

The minister's behaviour played perfectly to the opposition critics.

"Why have Canadians been kept completely in the dark?" NDP Leader Jack Layton asked outside the House.

Needless to say, the Cons' choice to retreat from any attempt to defend themselves should only spur both the opposition and the media to attack the issue with even more vigor. And the government's combination of broken promises and poor judgment surrounding the GNEP can only help the opposition in its task of showing the Canadian public that it's long past time to make sure the Cons are in no position to do any more damage.

Radioactive policy

The Globe and Mail goes into more detail about the Cons' plan to put Canada on the hook for international nuclear waste disposal through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. And the assumptions behind the Cons' current stance show just how problematic their position is.

First, here's Gary Lunn's take:

This week, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said he believes it is inevitable that the spent fuel, which contains significant energy potential, will be reprocessed, and then reused by the domestic Candu owners. However, Mr. Lunn denied Canada would be required to accept imported waste under the global partnership agreement.

Once again, it's worth highlighting what the Cons are willing to assume for the sake of signing on to the nuclear deal. Lunn's view is based on the assumption that as-of-yet nonexistent technology to reprocess nuclear waste will "inevitably" turn up in time to avoid the requirement to dispose of the waste otherwise. And if that doesn't happen...well, it's inevitable, so why worry?

Compare this to the Cons' stance on Kyoto, where they can't repeat often enough that it's simply impossible to meet international standards where (1) the technology already exists to actually meet Canada's targets, and (2) there are other compliance mechanisms available besides implementing immediate technological change.

Based on that contrast, it's clear that the Cons are as devoted to pushing the increased use of nuclear technology as they are determined to avoid doing anything about global warming. And the former position seems to be downright contagious among the Cons and their provincial allies.

Mind you, Lunn wasn't the only Con to speak out about the nuclear proposal. So let's see what Deceivin' Stephen is concerned about in considering the GNEP:

Mr. Harper told a Friday afternoon press conference in Sydney that he felt no pressure to decide, within a particular time frame, whether Canada should take part in the initiative.

"Obviously, in terms of anything internationally in this, Canada would have two priorities. One is to ensure that our uranium industry and our nuclear industry are not left out of any of the international opportunities that other countries may take advantage of," he told reporters.

"And, at the same time, we would obviously want to make sure that any kind of international agreement or any kind of international co-operation on nuclear energy fully respects the non-proliferation agreements and the non-proliferation objectives that Canada and other major countries have long subscribed to."

That's right: priority one is the almighty dollar, priority two is...basically an excuse for implicit posturing toward Iran, since nothing in the GNEP looks to actually change the non-proliferation regime already in place. And if you're looking for any mention of the risk associated with nuclear waste...well, that's just not a priority as far as the Cons are concerned.

We'll see whether the current public pressure is enough to make the Cons take a second look at their plan. But it seems all too clear that any change would be purely for political reasons rather than because of any recognition that there's some serious risk involved in the GNEP. And that complete disinterest in the obvious downside of a dangerous agreement offers just one more reason why Canadians shouldn't trust the Cons' judgment.