this blog has moved to a new address:

Please update your RSS, bookmarks, and links to

Monday, August 18, 2008

not expecting a knight to lead a real nuclear debate.

Regular readers will have noticed that I have remained quite skeptical about the expansion and development of nuclear power in Alberta (and I'm not the only one). Unfortunately, as is the case with many important public interest issues in Alberta, the expansion of nuclear power (partially to fuel the already dirty oilsands operations) is not getting the attention or critical debate that it deserves (care to theorize why this could be?).

Over the past couple months, I have written a number of posts on why I believe nuclear expansion is short-sighted move that could have long-term concequences for Albertans long after the private companies involved come and go (unless those companies plan on sticking around to deal with the nuclear leftovers for the next 10,000 years). In order to provide some balance to the nuclear debate on this blog, I am happy to post a link to some intelligent commentary from William Tucker. Tucker will be posting a three-part series on nuclear energy for on the New York Times' Freakonomics blog. You can read Tucker's first post here.

1 comment:

mj said...

From the article linked above:

"Our mandate is not to sway the public or government on nuclear," said U of A's Doucet.

The panel's role, he added, is to get at "the heart" of the issues that have been dominating Alberta' nuclear debate.

So, this panel of experts is not supposed to help the government make an informed decision on nuclear power based on facts and research? What are we paying them for then? Correct me if I misinterpreted that quote.