DETAILS

Dr. Helen Caldicott - Nuclear Power is Not the Answer
MacEwan Hall
Tuesday, October 7 - Tuesday, October 7

More in: Lectures & Workshops

Dr. Helen Caldicott, the world’s leading spokesperson for the anti-nuclear movement, is on her way to Calgary to challenge nuclear industry claims that it can provide electricity efficiently, safely and with no discharge of greenhouse gases. In an interview about her upcoming speech entitled Nuclear Power is Not the Answer, she calls the claim “a fallacy, a lie, mendacious propaganda.”

Her visit is timely. Bruce Power, a nuclear operator from Ontario, has filed an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to build four large reactors at Lac Cardinal, located on an active fault complex in the Peace River area. Minister of Natural Resources Gary Lunn is on record suggesting nuclear reactors could provide energy for Alberta’s oilsands. The Canada West Foundation has recently chimed in with a report suggesting the opportunities of nuclear energy far outweigh its challenges.

As co-founder of Physicians for Nuclear Responsibility, Caldicott has dedicated the last 35 years to public education about the medical hazards of the nuclear age, work that earned her a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. She systematically dismantles what she calls the nuclear industry’s “public relations scam” in her book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer.

The book details how radioactive waste and other toxins from nuclear reactors contaminate food and water chains and expose humans to cancer and genetic abnormalities. While industry downplays the risk of accidents, she notes that the release of toxic and radioactive wastes is not just accidental; it is part of routine operations. Caldicott says nuclear energy is “a medical problem of the utmost degree. We’re talking about random genetic malformations in all species for generations to come.”

Caldicott’s impatience with what she calls industry greenwashing is palpable. Its greenhouse gas figures are based on plant operations alone and don’t account for fossil fuels used during the full life cycle of a reactor, she explains. This cycle includes construction, uranium mining and milling, eventual decommissioning, transport and long-term storage of nuclear waste. “A true scientist looks at all aspects of every issue and has an open mind,” she says, “We know so much now. And too much of it is being misapplied by capitalism just to make money.”

Elena Schacherl, co-chair of Citizens Advocating the Use of Sustainable Energy (CAUSE), the group responsible for bringing Caldicott to Calgary, agrees. Schacherl wants nuclear energy to be an election issue, both because of its environmental and human health impacts and its high cost, much of it borne by taxpayers.

According to Canadian Nuclear Subsidies, a 2003 report by the Sierra Club of Canada, “Over a 50-year period (from 1953 to 2002), government subsidies to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited [AECL] totalled $17.5 billion (in 2001 dollars).” Caldicott calls this “corporate socialism.” “Nuclear power can’t exist without public money, especially in infrastructure. Private investors won’t touch it,” she says. Referring to the recent U.S. financial meltdown, she adds this is unlikely to change. “Wall Street won’t be interested in more risk.”

Power estimates the four Alberta plants will cost $10 billion. The plants proposed for Alberta would utilize new technology and, according to a 2008 Fraser Institute report about the feasibility of further nuclear investment in Ontario, there is no precedent for first-of-a-kind construction to be either on budget or on time. Cost overruns are historically in the billions. And while known costs are already high, estimating costs for long-term waste containment strategies that have yet to be invented and must last for tens of thousands of years is impossible. Schacherl says, “If this really makes sense from a business perspective, let’s scrap tax-funded subsidies to AECL and see if anyone wants to take it up,” Schacherl says.

Chris Severson-Baker of the Pembina Institute, a sustainable energy advocacy group, says that Pembina is not anti-nuclear. However, he says, “If the question is, how do we meet Alberta’s future electricity needs in the most environmentally sound way, nuclear is way down the list. It doesn’t make any sense when there are other things more environmentally sustainable that are less costly, that we can bring online sooner and with less impact and risk.” Reactors take five to 15 years to build and we need solutions that are ready to go now. Geothermal is a good option in Alberta, according to Severson-Baker. “We have excellent information about our sub-surface, and we’re good at drilling holes. We don’t have to import expertise, buy someone else’s technology and experience and try to make it work while taking on all the risk we already know is associated with nuclear, and its huge price tag.”

Caldicott thinks subsidizing nuclear energy while failing to similarly invest in more sustainable options is “literally stealing from the future. You could cover the whole of Canada with solar panels, windmills, geothermal and tidal energy solutions with the amount of money invested in nuclear.”

Both Severson-Baker and Schacherl question whether Alberta will even need nuclear power given that Alberta Energy has already announced the future development of over 10,000 megawatts of additional generating capacity from existing sources like wind, biomass, hydro, coal and natural gas. Severson-Baker and Schacherl believe this will address projected growth in Alberta’s energy needs. However, Dr. Robert Page, a professor of environmental management and sustainability at the University of Calgary, disagrees. “We will need all the power sources we can get in Alberta. We need base load capacity power that runs 24 hours a day. Wind power won’t do it.” Page is not against nuclear if it is economically viable, but warns, “In our current circumstances of international financial dislocation, it would be almost impossible to finance anything new right now. We’re in a position where it will be another year or two before we can begin to look at it again.”

The real Achilles heel of nuclear power might turn out to be as simple as water. “The proposed reactors in Peace Country will use 40 times as much water per year than the City of Calgary does in the same time,” Schacherl says. Alberta may not have enough to support a thirsty nuclear industry.

Caldicott speaks with urgency. “Global warming is proceeding faster than even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says. We don’t have that much time.” Saying the nuclear industry “gives birth to annihilation,” she enters territory familiar to those who know her 1982 documentary, If You Love This Planet. “Women have been strangely silent on these issues. We need to nurture the future. We need more women — not Sarah Palin — we need the Maude Barlows and the Naomi Kleins. All of us need to speak up. We have to do it if we love our children and our grandchildren.”

Dr. Helen Caldicott will speak at MacEwan Hall on Tuesday, October 7 at 7 p.m. Admission is free. For more information, see www.nuclearfreealberta.ca.