mKOKr4 wjijoezfeevn

Ron,I know you want to debate nulcear energy, and obviously are against it, hence your references, twice, to dinosaurs . But, let's deal with the real issues how to strengthen AECL and the CNSC.So, let's be honest first. No matter how you may feel, nulcear energy will coninue to be a big part of Canada's energy mix. Both the recently re-elected McGuinty gov't in Ontario as well as the PC opposition are pro-nuke (the latter even more so). New Brunswick is looking to expand their nulcear program, and there is a good chance Alberta will go this way as well.Now, as far as Alberta is concerned, it is not, as Elizabeth May improperly claims (once again) to speed up exploitation of the tar sandse2€a6. It is to reduce GHG's and offer an economic alternative to the other options (gas and coal). In fact, if you tied your oilsands (or tar sands) development to a nulcear plant, you would in fact delay development of your plant as the development cycle of a nuke is much longer than an oilsands plant.Now, for years and years, anti-nuke NGOs (led btw by E May at the Sierra Club) have complained about the subsidies paid to AECL by the Feds. They have prepared, through CNP, very questionable economic analysis, by an anti-nuke activis,t pointing out the subsidies since 1952 (without of course including the economic benefits heck that would provide a balanced picture). And the anti-nuke NGOs have employed the spin and echo chamber techniques to get the message out amongst the less knowledgeable and the anti-nuke activists.They have also used this to pressure various governments to stop funding AECL (as head of Sierra and recently as head of the GPC Ms. May has referred to both Jean Chretien and Gary Lunn respectively as whores for promoting CANDU reactors in Canada and around the world).So, when Paul Martin ( a good friend of E May) was undertaking his austerity programs in the 90 s, it was not politically difficult to cut funding to AECL.Today's problems, as the TorStar article point out, is due to a chronic case of underfunding to AECL over the past many years which, in my opinion, can be attributed to a great degree to the anti-nuke movement. When you don't have the funding, you defer maintenace, morale drops etc. and the industry does not attract the qualified individuals it needs for renewal.To me it's like the NASA space program. In the early 70 s they went to the moon. Today, there is talk about returning maybe by 2020 the key knowledge and expertise no longer resides there.Despite all of the witch hunting and finger pointing that the GPC and other anti-nukes want to undertake (and IMO an investigation would be a good thing to identify the problems) , the question should boil down to this:Either properly fund AECL, or privatize it (I'm for the latter). Don't continue to own it and underfund it.There are many alternatives to the CANDU reactor, and while the focus of late by the anti-nukes has been AECL, there's a good chance its competitors will be soon building their versions in Canada.(P.S. go read Hansard, Dec 11th debates to get a full appreciation of the real issues over the shutdown not the fairy tale E May version)