Clever Clogs
Posts: 674 
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
January 17th, 2008, 03:23 PM
I can understand Avro's feelings. Political interference or intimidation of a regulator is a very serious issue. Those people are suppose to be independent. Just like our judicial system.
Keen did her job. She's filed issues with the facility and nothing was done about those issues within the given time frame. Nuclear safety is not to be taken lightly. It doesn't matter how remote an accident might be. The consequences of an accident are serious and she gave her recommendations well in advance. Even an audit points out that serious concerns should have been addressed by AECL. After such deadlines, issuing closure of the facility was no doubt simply procedure. Wouldn't you expect the same action on a food manufacturing operation with safety concerns?
While there is a serious dependency on the product of the facility, isn't not up to her to give passes based on the need related to the product. Parliament voted on accepting the risk whether right or wrong in the face of AECL neglect as to restarting the reactor. Keen however did her job as a regulator and nothing more or less should have been asked of her.
Anyone defending the government on this and Lunn's actions are so terribly wrong. Our country is an example by the checks and balances of our system. This totally undermines that. We have to have confidence that our regulators are looking out for us without interference. Without fear of intimidation. Whether that is corporate interference or political.
Quoting Pangloss
Holy cow Avro - you hosting a barbeque? There's a whole lotta flamin' goin' on. . .
Pangloss
Pangloss
I can understand Avro's feelings. Political interference or intimidation of a regulator is a very serious issue. Those people are suppose to be independent. Just like our judicial system.
Keen did her job. She's filed issues with the facility and nothing was done about those issues within the given time frame. Nuclear safety is not to be taken lightly. It doesn't matter how remote an accident might be. The consequences of an accident are serious and she gave her recommendations well in advance. Even an audit points out that serious concerns should have been addressed by AECL. After such deadlines, issuing closure of the facility was no doubt simply procedure. Wouldn't you expect the same action on a food manufacturing operation with safety concerns?
While there is a serious dependency on the product of the facility, isn't not up to her to give passes based on the need related to the product. Parliament voted on accepting the risk whether right or wrong in the face of AECL neglect as to restarting the reactor. Keen however did her job as a regulator and nothing more or less should have been asked of her.
Anyone defending the government on this and Lunn's actions are so terribly wrong. Our country is an example by the checks and balances of our system. This totally undermines that. We have to have confidence that our regulators are looking out for us without interference. Without fear of intimidation. Whether that is corporate interference or political.
Member
Posts: 135
January 17th, 2008, 08:35 PM
A government commonly makes decisions that shuffle the mortality deck as do most decision makers including ourselves. Decisions that affect societies or groups need group measures to reflect morality or ethics. In medical ethics an intervention that does not produce a net reduction in morbidity is unethical—even so the decisions remain co,plex. In social ethics, it might be J.S. Mill and the ethical calculus (the greatest good for the greatest number) although I’ve never heard of it reduced to a metric. Both examples are group measures that consider the consequences of actions as well as the intended laudable results.
Basically, our PM cannot point to prevention of a single or small number of deaths as a moral virtue whenever it is convenient. Governments frequently make budget decisions to fund military equipment purchases rather than preventative medicine initiatives; governments form policies to create elective senates and reapportion in ways that create more jobs for politicians and support facilities; they create larger cabinets but not additional medical school and hospital capacities; governments fail to adequately fund white collar crime policing units, when such crime smashes many lives. Stress and povety kill too.
At present, we have fewer physicians per population than in many decades and we have a sizable percent of the population who are unable to find family physicians. We have had huge reductions in federal funding to health care made by previous Liberal governments that have not been restored, and politics is about the only economic sector of the economy that hasn’t been downsized. These are all budgetary issues. I’d be terribly surprised if some minor juggling of federal budget priorities wouldn’t reduce net morbidities far more than restarting the reactor might have. Harper’s claim of having take over the safety board to restart the reactor for high minded moral reasons simple doesn’t wash, nor does the character assassination of Keen (for placing lives at risk). The supply of isotopes is not part of the safety board’s mandate--nuclear safety is.
There is no such thing as a risk free reactor. The acceptable risk is the result of public policy formation. Conventionally 1000 years per catastrophic accident is acceptable in this society. A 1000 years is a pretty remote event by any standard, but that is the public policy and backed by legislative acts. Moral behaviour for government might be to fix the several boards, if desirable, through appointments etc., or accept greater risk by forming new public policy. Taking over a regulatory board and arbitrarily deciding that some safety requirements are unnecessary seem morally weak. Whether backup for backup etc. would only be required in event of remote circumstances is beside the point. You certainly don’t want catastrophic accidents to be anything less than utterly remote possibilities.
Contriving an emergency crisis and taking over the safety board and legislatively sanctifying a departure from the existing operating license doesn’t seem to be a very defensible moral or ethical position. For a PM to make public statements that the reactor could be restarted without risk to the public is indefensible and offensive, even if a weaselly ‘appreciable’ qualifier is added. Neither the crisis, the high minded moral intervention into reactor operations and safety nor the lack of risk to the public seem to come out vey well in the wash.
A government commonly makes decisions that shuffle the mortality deck as do most decision makers including ourselves. Decisions that affect societies or groups need group measures to reflect morality or ethics. In medical ethics an intervention that does not produce a net reduction in morbidity is unethical—even so the decisions remain co,plex. In social ethics, it might be J.S. Mill and the ethical calculus (the greatest good for the greatest number) although I’ve never heard of it reduced to a metric. Both examples are group measures that consider the consequences of actions as well as the intended laudable results.
Basically, our PM cannot point to prevention of a single or small number of deaths as a moral virtue whenever it is convenient. Governments frequently make budget decisions to fund military equipment purchases rather than preventative medicine initiatives; governments form policies to create elective senates and reapportion in ways that create more jobs for politicians and support facilities; they create larger cabinets but not additional medical school and hospital capacities; governments fail to adequately fund white collar crime policing units, when such crime smashes many lives. Stress and povety kill too.
At present, we have fewer physicians per population than in many decades and we have a sizable percent of the population who are unable to find family physicians. We have had huge reductions in federal funding to health care made by previous Liberal governments that have not been restored, and politics is about the only economic sector of the economy that hasn’t been downsized. These are all budgetary issues. I’d be terribly surprised if some minor juggling of federal budget priorities wouldn’t reduce net morbidities far more than restarting the reactor might have. Harper’s claim of having take over the safety board to restart the reactor for high minded moral reasons simple doesn’t wash, nor does the character assassination of Keen (for placing lives at risk). The supply of isotopes is not part of the safety board’s mandate--nuclear safety is.
There is no such thing as a risk free reactor. The acceptable risk is the result of public policy formation. Conventionally 1000 years per catastrophic accident is acceptable in this society. A 1000 years is a pretty remote event by any standard, but that is the public policy and backed by legislative acts. Moral behaviour for government might be to fix the several boards, if desirable, through appointments etc., or accept greater risk by forming new public policy. Taking over a regulatory board and arbitrarily deciding that some safety requirements are unnecessary seem morally weak. Whether backup for backup etc. would only be required in event of remote circumstances is beside the point. You certainly don’t want catastrophic accidents to be anything less than utterly remote possibilities.
Contriving an emergency crisis and taking over the safety board and legislatively sanctifying a departure from the existing operating license doesn’t seem to be a very defensible moral or ethical position. For a PM to make public statements that the reactor could be restarted without risk to the public is indefensible and offensive, even if a weaselly ‘appreciable’ qualifier is added. Neither the crisis, the high minded moral intervention into reactor operations and safety nor the lack of risk to the public seem to come out vey well in the wash.
No party affiliation
Posts: 1,333
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
January 17th, 2008, 10:15 PM
Ousted regulator just doing her job
January 17, 2008
Thomas Walkom
Stephen Harper's government says it fired the country's top nuclear regulator for not doing her job. The evidence suggests the opposite. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission head Linda Keen was fired because she was doing her job.
Let us be clear what Keen's job was. She and the rest of her commission are not charged with ensuring that all Canadians lead happy and healthy lives. Even Harper might find that task difficult.
Rather her job, as specified in the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, was to ensure that radioactive material was created and used safely.
Two years ago, Keen's commission renewed Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s operating licence for a reactor at Chalk River that produces medical isotopes. As a condition of licensing, AECL was required to upgrade safety systems on the 50-year-old reactor by installing two new pumps.
During a routine inspection last November, inspectors found the pumps still hadn't been installed. Which is why AECL shut the reactor down.
For a while, no one noticed. Then media stories began to appear suggesting that the country faced a severe isotope shortage that could lead to some medical tests and treatments being delayed.
It's probably worth noting that there is no record of anyone's health being harmed during this so-called crisis. It's also worth noting that by the time politicians became involved, AECL had already successfully installed one of the required backup pumps and was readying the second. On Dec. 11, an AECL official told the Commons that the necessary safety upgrades could be completed with just 16 more days of reactor down time.
Nonetheless, the three opposition parties – short-sighted as always – eagerly supported the government's decision to pass an emergency law that allowed the reactor to reopen before it was safe.
Now those same opposition parties seem surprised that the government has fired the regulator that they helped to undercut.
The government's case, articulated by Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn at a Commons committee yesterday, is that it was Keen's job to get Chalk River up and running. In fact, as the minister responsible for AECL, that task belonged to him. Her job under the law was to set and enforce nuclear safety standards – which she did.
The exact nature of the government's game is unclear. Green Leader Elizabeth May is probably close to the truth when she says Harper is trying to defang the regulatory watchdog at the behest of Canada's nuclear industry. Keen and AECL already were at loggerheads, particularly over her insistence that its new reactors be strong enough to withstand the impact of a large plane crash (a not unreasonable requirement in the post 9/11 world).
Certainly, Lunn's arguments yesterday made little sense. He characterized AECL's failure to meet the regulator's safety standards as a "dispute" between two agencies – which is rather like suggesting that someone who breaks the law is having a "dispute" with the convicting judge. He also insisted the issue was one of "licensing" rather than safety, even though the entire point of licensing a nuclear reactor is to ensure its safe operation.
And he made the disturbing claim, not reflected in law, that the government has the right to fire this and any future head of the nuclear regulatory commission at will and without cause.
All of which would render impotent a quasi-judicial commission that – until now at least – has existed for a very good reason.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/294886
Ousted regulator just doing her job
January 17, 2008
Thomas Walkom
Stephen Harper's government says it fired the country's top nuclear regulator for not doing her job. The evidence suggests the opposite. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission head Linda Keen was fired because she was doing her job.
Let us be clear what Keen's job was. She and the rest of her commission are not charged with ensuring that all Canadians lead happy and healthy lives. Even Harper might find that task difficult.
Rather her job, as specified in the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, was to ensure that radioactive material was created and used safely.
Two years ago, Keen's commission renewed Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s operating licence for a reactor at Chalk River that produces medical isotopes. As a condition of licensing, AECL was required to upgrade safety systems on the 50-year-old reactor by installing two new pumps.
During a routine inspection last November, inspectors found the pumps still hadn't been installed. Which is why AECL shut the reactor down.
For a while, no one noticed. Then media stories began to appear suggesting that the country faced a severe isotope shortage that could lead to some medical tests and treatments being delayed.
It's probably worth noting that there is no record of anyone's health being harmed during this so-called crisis. It's also worth noting that by the time politicians became involved, AECL had already successfully installed one of the required backup pumps and was readying the second. On Dec. 11, an AECL official told the Commons that the necessary safety upgrades could be completed with just 16 more days of reactor down time.
Nonetheless, the three opposition parties – short-sighted as always – eagerly supported the government's decision to pass an emergency law that allowed the reactor to reopen before it was safe.
Now those same opposition parties seem surprised that the government has fired the regulator that they helped to undercut.
The government's case, articulated by Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn at a Commons committee yesterday, is that it was Keen's job to get Chalk River up and running. In fact, as the minister responsible for AECL, that task belonged to him. Her job under the law was to set and enforce nuclear safety standards – which she did.
The exact nature of the government's game is unclear. Green Leader Elizabeth May is probably close to the truth when she says Harper is trying to defang the regulatory watchdog at the behest of Canada's nuclear industry. Keen and AECL already were at loggerheads, particularly over her insistence that its new reactors be strong enough to withstand the impact of a large plane crash (a not unreasonable requirement in the post 9/11 world).
Certainly, Lunn's arguments yesterday made little sense. He characterized AECL's failure to meet the regulator's safety standards as a "dispute" between two agencies – which is rather like suggesting that someone who breaks the law is having a "dispute" with the convicting judge. He also insisted the issue was one of "licensing" rather than safety, even though the entire point of licensing a nuclear reactor is to ensure its safe operation.
And he made the disturbing claim, not reflected in law, that the government has the right to fire this and any future head of the nuclear regulatory commission at will and without cause.
All of which would render impotent a quasi-judicial commission that – until now at least – has existed for a very good reason.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/294886
Clever Clogs
Posts: 674
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
January 18th, 2008, 12:08 AM
And what point exactly did I miss? Obviously what you implied regarding Avro's earlier responses is not really relevant to the topic thread anyway so doesn't matter to me either way.
Quoting Pangloss
elevennevele:
Read the thread; you missed my point.
Pangloss
Read the thread; you missed my point.
Pangloss
And what point exactly did I miss? Obviously what you implied regarding Avro's earlier responses is not really relevant to the topic thread anyway so doesn't matter to me either way.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,438 
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
January 18th, 2008, 07:44 AM
In a radio interview last evening (CBC) the former Health Minister for BC explained his understanding that the crisis was manufactured by the Conservatives, he maintained that the availability of isotopic diagnostics was in fact not ever likely to cause a crisis in health care for the simple reason it's not the only diagnostic tool. Routine contingency plans exist and would eliminate any danger to patients.
So I think we have a wholely manufactured health related crisis puposely built by the New Conservatives to hide some real crisis. Namely the unsafe state of the reactor due to corporate enefficencys. Further to that there are letters from CMA members to the conservatives mentioning this crisis which in fact was a crisis of those doctors not being able to bill for proceedures done using isotopic medicine, that's not patient crisis, it's personal business crisis.
In a radio interview last evening (CBC) the former Health Minister for BC explained his understanding that the crisis was manufactured by the Conservatives, he maintained that the availability of isotopic diagnostics was in fact not ever likely to cause a crisis in health care for the simple reason it's not the only diagnostic tool. Routine contingency plans exist and would eliminate any danger to patients.
So I think we have a wholely manufactured health related crisis puposely built by the New Conservatives to hide some real crisis. Namely the unsafe state of the reactor due to corporate enefficencys. Further to that there are letters from CMA members to the conservatives mentioning this crisis which in fact was a crisis of those doctors not being able to bill for proceedures done using isotopic medicine, that's not patient crisis, it's personal business crisis.
