May 25, 2009
WCR Letters to the Editor
Has nuclear power decision already been made?
Nuclear power in Alberta would not be an issue if those people in favour of it would be forced to have the plant and associated waste storage facility in their backyard.
High levels of radiation in the air and tritium in the drinking water will become a major concern for Albertans living near the proposed nuclear power plant in Peace River.
In Germany, where the environment is given priority, the government is phasing out nuclear power.
A German study concluded that people living near nuclear power plants had higher rates of cancer than the general population.
In a small village in southern Germany, citizens are blocking the entrance to a nuclear waste facility because measurements show increasing levels of radiation in the air.
The storage facility was built in the 1960s and 1970s and the containers filled with nuclear waste are leaking. The experts of the day were called in to solve the problem – they had no answers. Today’s experts were called in – they also had no solutions.
So maybe before we continue building power lines to the Montana border so that Bruce Power can sell cheap “clean” power to our southern neighbours, we should consider the impact that this venture will have on our own environment and on the health and safety of our friends and neighbours in our North.
The infrastructure is being put in place to export power to the South.
Has the nuclear issue already been decided? I think it has.
Bishop Henry should elaborate on questions affecting human rights amendments
I always read Bishop Fred Henry’s column with interest, although I do not always agree with him.
In this case I am looking for some elaboration on his column of May 11 (“Human rights legislation gets a D+ mark”). He seems to be supportive of the provision that allows some parents, some times, in some schools, to excuse their children from some classes.
Section 9 of Bill 44 (The Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act) only provides parents the opportunity to excuse their children from “prescribed” (the word in the bill) courses. They don’t have the right to excuse their children from optional courses, of which there are many.
What does Bishop Henry think of this distinction? In addition, the new provisions only apply to public and separate schools (schools operated by a board, and a board is defined as a public or separate school board): the bill doesn’t apply to charter and private schools.
What does Bishop Henry think of this distinction, especially the implication that it will allow parents in separate schools to excuse their children much more broadly than is the case with the “comparable” provision in the School Act?
I am very concerned that the government has introduced this legislation without thinking through the implications. The legislation is going to create a hierarchy of courses (some of which the act will cover, some of which it will not cover).
The legislation is going to create one situation for parents with children in public and separate schools and another situation for parents with children in charter and private schools. The legislation is going to sow confusion and discord.
Letters to the Editor
The WCR welcomes your letters. Please write 300 words or less and tell us your name, address and daytime phone number. All letters are subject to editing.
Opinions expressed in letters to the editor do not necessarily represent the views of the WCR.
Deadline for letters to be considered for publication is Friday noon, 10 days prior to the date of the issue.
The WCR’s policy for letters to the editor is available online atwww.wcr.ab.ca/letters-policy.shtml.