In Response to the Feb 26th, 2013 letter “Reader feels that nuclear industry dishonest

Dear Editor; In Response to the Feb 26th, 2013 letter “Reader feels that nuclear industry dishonest, fears for safety” Predictability is one word that can be applied to the anti nuclear lobby. The lobby has a couple of strategies and without exception applies them consistently. In no particular order they suggest that their interest is environmental protection and then they move to trying to connect the peaceful use of nuclear technology to nuclear weapons. Each approach is defined by technical inaccuracies and is often single sourced as was the case with the letter by Ralph Splettoesser that was published in the Feb 26th edition of the Kincardine News. If I can start with the simple numbers; the author of the letter states that a full 1.5 % of nuclear reactors have melted down; according to the World Nuclear Association (April 2012) the world’s operational reactors break down along these lines; • The first commercial nuclear power stations started operation in the 1950s. • There are now over 430 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries, with 372,000 MWe of total capacity. • They provide about 13.5% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, and their efficiency is increasing. • 56 countries operate a total of about 240 research reactors and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 150 ships and submarines. The data shows 850 operational reactors and that does not add in the number of reactors that have been taken responsibly out of service due to factors such as age. The 1.5 % would work out to 13 reactors if we only calculate based on the currently operational reactors. Clearly the numbers stated in the Feb 26th letter are exaggerated and intentionally designed to mislead. Splettoesser speaks to the activities of Chalk River Nuclear Labs (CRNL) during the Second World War in the context of nuclear weapons. When did it become a secret that CRNL was part of the multi-national effort to create an atomic weapon during that war? To suggest that the efforts in the middle of a world war have any connection to the focus and philosophy of the current highly regulated peaceful use of CANDU reactors worldwide is indicative of the various disingenuous arguments put forth by many people in the anti-nuclear lobby. The author of the Feb 26th letter points to CANDU reactors as plutonium factories. I am not a fuel expert, but I do know that in contrast to the “drive through” window for plutonium that Splettoesser tries to paint any extraction of plutonium requires hundreds of millions of dollars in investment towards fuel reprocessing facilities of which only a limited number of countries have actually erected. Further, is it not strange that if this extraction and high level of plutonium production was so easy to come by why did the Americans and Russians, the two largest manufacturers of atomic weapons over the five decades after the Second World War, not build anything but CANDU plants? They did not build one. The author of the Feb 26th letter is certainly good for a tale of conspiracy, but starkly poor on facts or logic. The Feb 26th author once again makes it look like tritium is available by simply asking for it. Tritium is a by-product of CANDU technology and tritium occurs naturally in nature also, but in neither case is it a matter of driving up to the window and asking for it. Tritium does not roam randomly amongst CANDU nuclear power plants, but resides chemically bonded and deep inside the processes of the of the plants. In contradiction to Splettoesser as of Dec 2012 GE-Hitachi is going to make nuclear power components for use in China and indeed France is going to put efforts into wind, but that is not to say that the attention to wind is going to put nuclear “out of business”. If France is making the same mistakes as Ontario in regards to wind power no wonder companies are investing and no one should suggest that the investment is based on the “all in” costs such as the additional fossil fuel costs associated with backing up wind power with gas. Splettoesser takes a shot at the cost of CANDU technology, but fails to mention that CANDU technology generates seven billion dollars in economic activity in Canada and that the uniquely Canadian design with features such as “on-line” refueling more than justifies any cost separation. Those in the anti-nuclear lobby, like Splettoesser, have one redeeming feature-consistency-and that consistency as noted at the front of this letter provides ample opportunity to refute their positions with a few facts and little logic. Dave Trumble Kincardine