To the editor,
It would appear recently there has been somewhat of an uproar over the recent letters published in your paper written by Tony Zettel.
One thing being that he goes to great lengths to bestow the 10 great virtues of the nuclear industry and how the next generation of small nuclear reactors (SMRs) is key to getting Canada to net-zero carbon emissions by 2030. The other, that Tony works for the nuclear industry but does little to disclose this in his letter. As such, it would lead the reader to conclude that his letters are obviously self-serving if not out-right nuclear industry propaganda.
In my opinion, the choice of full disclosure of where a letter writer works is up to the writer and should not disqualify their right to submit such opinions to a local paper. However, I would add that it would seem rather foolish not to do so as it fully undermines the credibility and distracts from the points of their letter.
As regards to the points of Tony’s opinion, that SMRs are the answer to fighting climate change, there are numerous articles and facts that point to the folly of this technology unproven both economically feasible or safe. And probably of most concern to those involved in centralizing nuclear waste here in South Bruce recent studies done in May of 2022 show that in regards to SMRs and nuclear waste:
“The low-, intermediate-, and high-level waste stream characterization presented here reveals that SMRs will produce more voluminous and chemically/physically reactive waste than LWRs, which will impact options for the management and disposal of this waste.” – University of Pennsylvania
(For full access to this peer reviewed article go to: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111833119)
Furthermore in regards to Tony’s other top 10 virtues of supporting next gen SMRs and thus putting us on “the right side of history,” I would suggest one read first from those who have warned us for years of the historic dangers and folly of nuclear energy, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, who are now pointing to the absurdity of relying on nuclear energy to fight climate change citing it as “a distraction” to real solutions. Read more at: https://thebulletin.org/premium/2021-11/nuclear-energy-a-distraction-on-the-road-to-climate-solutions/#post-heading.
I understand that locally, where our economy has grown ever more dependent on the success of nuclear energy, that cheerleaders like Tony bring welcome news. But sometimes we have to listen closely to outside sources and proven studies even if they bring inconvenient truths.
And in conclusion full disclosure: Although a long-time critic of all things nuclear and card-carrying member of Greenpeace, I garner no fees nor is my current income dependent on the future demise of the nuclear industry and in commenting on it. I am just quite cautious these days hoping that that I end up on “the right side of history.”
David Wood
Mildmay
