RAITT-GATE

[jdobbin]

The impression your party has been working frantically to build? Yes, perhaps she should have done one of those dreary mia culpas right at the beginning. "I'm so sorry for being human instead of a robotic calculating machine which never says anything wrong, never makes off-colour jokes, never has family problems, never confides in aides, never displays an iota of humanity lest the media and opposition jump on it like starving, rabid dogs".

I think you give the Opposition too much credit in this. The minister has been hoisted upon her own words. The recording which her staff seemed to have little interest in retrieving really begged a response.

There is not one politician, one media personality, or in fact, probably one person on this forum who has not said unflattering things about colleagues at work, including me. We just don't expect someone to accidentally tape those comments, then lose the tape recorder, then not bother picking it up when the press call, then have the press blurt our words all over the front page.

Word gets out about a person whether she talks behind people's backs even without the media broadcasting it.

[Smallc]

And that's the crux of the problem. The Liberals had to have known about Chalk River's problems.

They did...and that's why they had ner reactors built. They simply couldn't be made to work, but the Liberal Party can't be blamed for that anymore than the Conservatives can for the problem now. What they can be blamed for is a complete lack of action on alternatives in the year since they cancelled the MAPLE project.

[benny]

Word gets out about a person whether she talks behind people's backs even without the media broadcasting it.

To me, when one is talking in the back of her two nearest colleagues, she doesn't fit in there.

[Dave_ON]

Told AECL to fix it. What would you have them do? Equip their caucus with nuclear physics degrees from Bob Jones Internet University and come up with a solution to the myriad problems of Maple 1 and 2? Buy a new reactor at Reactors R Us?

They told AECL to get the job done. AECL assured them they could. I'm just not sure any of you even have any ideas as to what else they could have done, or what YOU would have done had you been in office. Fixing reactors which are filled with problems is not something you do over a long weekend of overtime. It does, in fact, take years.

What I expect them to do is either resolve the issues with the Maple 1 and 2 reactors and if indeed that is not possible come up with a plan to begin work on a new reactor. The fact that a reactor is required is beyond question, what is in question is why the Conservatives scrapped the already active Maple 1 and 2 projects with no alternative game plan. As you yourself stated it takes years to perfect a reactor, not to mention a significant financial investment. The viability of the Maple 1 and 2 is up for debate. There are many nuclear experts that disagree with the findings of the report that resulted in the shutdown of the project. Waldo has cited one such source in an earlier post # 74. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=429363

So my question to you is this, does it make sense to extend a reactor beyond it license, rather than resolving technical issues with reactors that are already under development? Not only this does it further make sense to scrap an active reactor project with absolutely no backup plan in place or any indication that a new project with BETTER oversight will be at the very least started? Is privatizing AECL going to resolve the issue or is this another example of the conservative philosophy of privatizing profits while socializing the costs?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It seems that Raitt is now being focused on for yet another issue! She claims Prentice diverted money for wind power to the oil sands, at least that is what the news says...http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/11/...nd-leak011.html

[benny]

It seems that Raitt is now being focused on for yet another issue! She claims Prentice diverted money for wind power to the oil sands, at least that is what the news says...http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/11/...nd-leak011.html

When insiders become whistleblowers, politics become very open and motivating.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

When insiders become whistleblowers, politics become very open and motivating.

I think things may become wide open very soon..........

[benny]

I think things may become wide open very soon..........

Time for us to enter politics!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Time for us to enter politics!

Not yet, five more years. I will enter the field but not until I retire from the railroad.

[Argus]

Argus did you take a dimwit pill this morning?

Why? You running short?

I have said before and will say again that there is blame enough for everybody

Actually no, you said no such thing. You said she was a fool and a liar and needed to resign.

Only when I pointed out how idiotic that was did you sort of accept that maybe there are others somewhere - unnamed - who might in some small way factor into this.

Look Argus, there is a problem and something needs to be done about it.

Fine. You're in charge. What would you do?

The government knew about it ahead of time, told nobody and did nothing.

Everybody knew about it. You just don't read the newspapers. As for doing nothing - you have not one single clue what or what was not done or said or agreed upon or what reassurances were made between AECL and the government, so you're hardly in a position to judge.

The thing finally blows up in the governments face and what happens? The government blames the previous government, not even a novel approach.

It is a natural approach given the people accusing the govenrment let the reactor age and did nothing for 13 years. It's like the Liberals whining that the Tories haven't lived up to our kyoto agreement when they did nothing for 13 years, or complaining that the tories are spending money on military equipment after the Liberals let the military rust out for 13 years.

Here is the rub, the problem has now become a political one.

And once again you're wrong. It's only a political one in the shallowest sense of the word, as in how to handle the spin. It's actually a scientific problem. You can't make the reactor young again. You can't make the two crappy reactors work. Building a new one will cost hundreds of millions and take at least a decade, and probably more.

Now I am sure in your mind that the government has done no wrong. Hey guess what, they didn't break the reactor! They are innocent of the cause of the problem, yet they are responsible for providing a solution to the problem.

That's true, if a solution is possible. It may not be. Apparently producing isatopes for the world has always been a money-losing proposition, and maybe the government doesn't want continue in that line.

The Conservatives have so far managed to make it worse in the way they have handled it so for.

Really? How have they made it worse? What should they have done that you know they did not do?

I imagine they can make it worse since we have now decided to deal with the thing in a political manner.

I think your imagining everything about what the tories did or did not do because you don't really know anything.

[Shakeyhands]

Wow. Watch the back-pedalling at the horrified though someone might hold the Liberals even slightly to blame for not fixing the problem, or even seeing to it there was a backup in place.

Merely asking. It wasn't too long ago that a certain politician was derided for not only having an education but by sharing it. I just never know which way you CPC'rs are going to go on an issue. I get it now, Education = Good

EDIT: meant to quote your response to me Argus, not the one above.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Shakeyhands

[benny]

Not yet, five more years. I will enter the field but not until I retire from the railroad.

In politics, one can change retirement rules.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Argus did you take a dimwit pill this morning?

Why? You running short?

Nice shot! I like it, because it seems like a reasonable response.

I have said before and will say again that there is blame enough for everybody

Actually no, you said no such thing. You said she was a fool and a liar and needed to resign.

Only when I pointed out how idiotic that was did you sort of accept that maybe there are others somewhere - unnamed - who might in some small way factor into this.

Look Argus I waded into this foray a little late because I was trying to research some of the stuff being said. When I did step into the forum I did so with little steps until I watched "Poor Little Lisa's" public response. At that point I was miffed at her amateur theatrics, and the lack of any questions from the media.

Look Argus, there is a problem and something needs to be done about it.

Fine. You're in charge. What would you do?

I would get on the ball, and off of the dime. I would ask the Prime Minister to give me some time to formulate a feasible solution to the problem. To do that I would contact Provincial Health Ministers and ask them to talk to the people in the field in their own provinces and ask them to transition to positron emission tomography (PET) scans. PET scans use isotopes that can be created in hospital-run cyclotrons but have a shorter life than reactor-produced isotopes. In addition I would look at converting the particle accelerator in Saskatchewan to fire photons at a relatively stable uranium isotope, uranium 238. The isotopes may derived through that process. That province has an abundance of raw material to work with.

The government knew about it ahead of time, told nobody and did nothing.

Everybody knew about it. You just don't read the newspapers. As for doing nothing - you have not one single clue what or what was not done or said or agreed upon or what reassurances were made between AECL and the government, so you're hardly in a position to judge.

Pardon me your highness but I choose to disagree once again with your sanctimonious assertion. If everybody knew about it there would not have been the public relations nightmare the government is dealing with now. Granted the problem has been mitigated to some degree with the Ministers comments, but the problem exists nonetheless.

The thing finally blows up in the governments face and what happens? The government blames the previous government, not even a novel approach.

It is a natural approach given the people accusing the govenrment let the reactor age and did nothing for 13 years. It's like the Liberals whining that the Tories haven't lived up to our kyoto agreement when they did nothing for 13 years, or complaining that the tories are spending money on military equipment after the Liberals let the military rust out for 13 years.

Of course it is a natural response, I indicated already that it was not even a novel approach! Its like this, or its like that simply doesn't cut the mustard dude. The fact is that politicians of all stripes make the same damned mistakes time and time again and that does not justify their action one little bit. The worst offenders are the blind partisan followers like yourself who seem to be incapable of understanding the most simple reality of all, and that is the blame game is just that, a game. You need to start rethinking your own approach to problem resolution. Pointing fingers just doesn't get anything done.

Here is the rub, the problem has now become a political one.

And once again you're wrong. It's only a political one in the shallowest sense of the word, as in how to handle the spin. It's actually a scientific problem. You can't make the reactor young again. You can't make the two crappy reactors work. Building a new one will cost hundreds of millions and take at least a decade, and probably more.

I can see you want to play spin doctor plainly enough. That shallow sense of the word you are talking about is exactly what the Minister started with months ago, you can believe that or not, but listen to the tape or read the transcripts first. The science problem isn't a problem at all unless of course you are married to some technological aspect with vested interest. Like the Conservative Government and their desire to sell off portions of the Canadian publics ownership of AECL. That would likely be of far less value to the government if the system was determined to be both flawed and unusable, which is really the case here isn't it. There are wheels within wheels here Argus, this is a big boys game. Far more than what meets the eye is at play here.

Now I am sure in your mind that the government has done no wrong. Hey guess what, they didn't break the reactor! They are innocent of the cause of the problem, yet they are responsible for providing a solution to the problem.

That's true, if a solution is possible. It may not be. Apparently producing isatopes for the world has always been a money-losing proposition, and maybe the government doesn't want continue in that line.

cbc news

A research scientist at Canada's national particle and nuclear physics lab is calling on the federal government to look into ways of delivering radioactive medical isotopes without the need for nuclear reactors.

This was dated Jan 29/2009, it is true. Something can be done.

The Conservatives have so far managed to make it worse in the way they have handled it so for.

Really? How have they made it worse? What should they have done that you know they did not do?

The statement was self evident, it was the manner in which the situation was handled. Raitt should have been fired by Harper. He should then have replaced her and made public the solution I just gave you.

I imagine they can make it worse since we have now decided to deal with the thing in a political manner.

I think your imagining everything about what the tories did or did not do because you don't really know anything.

You are right about one thing, I don't know what the Tories have done. Nobody else does either. Probably because they haven't done anything. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.

[capricorn]

She blundered in looking obstinate, but she may also have blundered in an over-the-top apology. Screwing up like this is tough to get out of, but here's some advice; apologize quickly, with heartfelt emotion, but not too much emotion.

I agree. IMO, although Canadians may accuse some politicians of being cold and heartless, deep down they want tough politicians who preferably don't shed tears in public. I think this is one thing that has worked in Harper's favour as reflected in his constantly high leadership poll numbers. He shows just enough humanity to keep him this side of being a human being. The rest is a show of strength of purpose.

Raitt should have been content to let the media report on her personal experiences with cancer. this would have avoided the accusations of crocodile tears lobed her way.

I don't expect her to be in Cabinet that much longer.

Neither do I.

And you can be assured that the media will be dropping more of Raitt's delightful bon mottes.

Water torture comes to mind.

[benny]

I agree. IMO, although Canadians may accuse some politicians of being cold and heartless, deep down they want tough politicians who preferably don't shed tears in public. I think this is one thing that has worked in Harper's favour as reflected in his constantly high leadership poll numbers. He shows just enough humanity to keep him this side of being a human being. The rest is a show of strength of purpose.

Raitt should have been content to let the media report on her personal experiences with cancer. this would have avoided the accusations of crocodile tears lobed her way.

To me, politics requires selflessness; Raitt has shown only a lot of self-centeredness (by misusing the words "credits" and "sexy") and some self-control (by speaking of her family).

[Jerry J. Fortin]

To me, politics requires selflessness; Raitt has shown only a lot of self-centeredness (by misusing the words "credits" and "sexy") and some self-control (by speaking of her family).

She is no better than most and no worse either. She screwed up and got taped doing it, not the first time this has happened and it won't be the last.

[benny]

She is no better than most and no worse either. She screwed up and got taped doing it, not the first time this has happened and it won't be the last.

Your self-defeating attitude is worst than Raitt's self-obsessed one.

[Visionseeker]

It's all moot. She'll be out of her job soon after the writ is dropped next week. Brace yourselves, we're headed for a summer election.

[ToadBrother]

To me, politics requires selflessness; Raitt has shown only a lot of self-centeredness (by misusing the words "credits" and "sexy") and some self-control (by speaking of her family).

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Are you serious? Politicians rival music divas for vanity. Self-interest is the name of the game in politics. If personal ambition happens to align with the greater good, then so much the better, but believe me, you see a successful politician in a position of importance, the former is getting a lot more attention then the latter.

I feel sorry for Raitt. I get the impression she's your average Cabinet Minister, a figure head who relies to a very great extent on staffers and senior bureaucrats. Her blame, to my mind, is in hiring what may be the worst staffer in history, Jasmine Macdonnell.

Last week there was interesting op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph about the MP expense scandal across the pond (boy, if you think our MPs are bad, just look at the UK, but anyways...), and one of the bits of advice was to consider, to one extent or another, the American model, where the cabinet is made up appointees, nominated by the President but vetted by the President, and I think there's some merit to this idea. In the Westminster system and its derivatives, very few ministers ever have any meaningful experience in the portfolios they found themselves in. In other words, cabinet ministers are, for the most part, simply the public face of huge bureaucratic machines, who rely solely upon advisers to manage the ministries.

Wouldn't it be something if the whole Chalk River issue was being managed by, say, an experienced nuclear engineer, or at least someone who had managed such installations?

[waldo]

What I expect them to do is either resolve the issues with the Maple 1 and 2 reactors and if indeed that is not possible come up with a plan to begin work on a new reactor. The fact that a reactor is required is beyond question, what is in question is why the Conservatives scrapped the already active Maple 1 and 2 projects with no alternative game plan. As you yourself stated it takes years to perfect a reactor, not to mention a significant financial investment. The viability of the Maple 1 and 2 is up for debate. There are many nuclear experts that disagree with the findings of the report that resulted in the shutdown of the project. Waldo has cited one such source in an earlier post # 74. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=429363

So my question to you is this, does it make sense to extend a reactor beyond it license, rather than resolving technical issues with reactors that are already under development? Not only this does it further make sense to scrap an active reactor project with absolutely no backup plan in place or any indication that a new project with BETTER oversight will be at the very least started? Is privatizing AECL going to resolve the issue or is this another example of the conservative philosophy of privatizing profits while socializing the costs?

yiminee... take a little ole break and Argus runs amok with deflection/distraction/distortion! Absofnlootly the Liberals had a plan - hence Maple reactors.

so - the Harper Conservative plan is to turn tail and send Canada down a path of dependency... depending on others in the world for Canada's own long-term isotope requirements. The Harper Conservative plan is to take Canada out of a strategic technical position/opportunity - to "cut and run".

yes - particularly for the deflecting/distracting/distorting Argus... have another look at the post link Dave_ON provides => post # 74. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=429363

the post where I provide the complete joint statement concerning the replacement MAPLE reactors, issued May 16, 2008, by Gary Lunn, (then) Minister of Natural Resources and Tony Clement, (then) Minister of Health. The statement that speaks of Maple test failures (which they were not... failures)... the statement that speaks of Maple technical malfunctions that could not be resolved (which they can... be resolved).

part of the real story here is the firing of Keen... the replacement AECL management team and Board that the Conservatives appointed in January 2008... and the overall intentions of the Conservatives to sell off AECL.

... for reinforcement - particularly for Argus' benefit, the other part of the linked post mentioned above... the position/response from Dr. Harold J. Smith, the ex-Manager of the MAPLE Nuclear Commissioning:

as Dr. Harold J. Smith, the ex-Manager of the MAPLE Nuclear Commissioning, states:

That this bowing could take place was

an engineering issue that was easily solvable

. The Korean research reactor Hanaro is based on Maple technology. Hanaro has a negative PCR of the value that we calculated for Maple. The Hanaro fuel is also produced by AECL. There are, however, subtle differences in the two fuel designs that arose due to early fuel vibration concerns in the Hanaro design. The fuel vibration issue had been solved by one means for Maple while for Hanaro the fuel was modified and made stiffer. The stiffer fuel bundle design plus a slightly different distribution of the fuel meat, led to a reduction in the amount of fuel element bowing combined with a reduced impact of any fuel bowing that might take place.

I repeat: the tests did not fail.

The tests were measuring contributions from various sources and

the test series was interrupted and terminated prematurely

. The Maple reactor design is probably the safest reactor design in existence since it actually has three shutdown systems, two fast and one slower. In the strange world of reactor licensing, credit in safety analysis is taken only for the second trip on the slowest shutdown system, thus ignoring the two fast systems completely. The Maple reactor operated like a dream and was/is fully capable of meeting all objectives. All you have to do is finish the last test or put Hanaro-design fuel in it.

Some may regard this assumption as speculation. They are entitled to their opinion. However, my group had calculated the potential contributions from the bowing of LEU elements for Maple and Hanaro and the reduced impact of bowing of elements of the Hanaro fuel design is not speculation. How much bowing actually takes place is an extremely difficult calculation and the result depends strongly on assumptions of the end restraints. Furthermore, it would have been possible to improve the early calculation that under-reported the amount of LEU bowing that takes place.

This work also was in progress. In the end, the only definitive measure, when you are at the edge of what is possible to calculate, is to do the test.

just what is it about advanced technology that has Conservatives turning tail (again)... if it's only about... mo' money!

yes! Again... just what is it about advanced technology that has Conservatives turning tail (again)? Indeed - shades of Avro Arrow!

[benny]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Are you serious? Politicians rival music divas for vanity. Self-interest is the name of the game in politics. If personal ambition happens to align with the greater good, then so much the better, but believe me, you see a successful politician in a position of importance, the former is getting a lot more attention then the latter.

I feel sorry for Raitt. I get the impression she's your average Cabinet Minister, a figure head who relies to a very great extent on staffers and senior bureaucrats. Her blame, to my mind, is in hiring what may be the worst staffer in history, Jasmine Macdonnell.

Last week there was interesting op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph about the MP expense scandal across the pond (boy, if you think our MPs are bad, just look at the UK, but anyways...), and one of the bits of advice was to consider, to one extent or another, the American model, where the cabinet is made up appointees, nominated by the President but vetted by the President, and I think there's some merit to this idea. In the Westminster system and its derivatives, very few ministers ever have any meaningful experience in the portfolios they found themselves in. In other words, cabinet ministers are, for the most part, simply the public face of huge bureaucratic machines, who rely solely upon advisers to manage the ministries.

Wouldn't it be something if the whole Chalk River issue was being managed by, say, an experienced nuclear engineer, or at least someone who had managed such installations?

For a democracy to be fruitful it needs both a free flow of information and a leader able to personify a screen on which citizens recognized themselves. Therefore, a fruitful democracy is not a representative democracy with a president surrounded by experts but a deliberative democracy with a moderator-in-chief.

Edited June 12, 2009 by benny

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Your self-defeating attitude is worst than Raitt's self-obsessed one.

Self defeating? I think not, look I think she should have been fired, but that call is not mine to make its Harper's. For that matter I want to fire Harper, but that isn't up to me either. I will get my chance to have a say, and I will say fire him. The citizens will have a say, many will say fire him, and many will not. I tend to think he will lose the election, but that remains to be seen.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

CBC News

There you go, don't you just wish the politicians had enough brains to do act upon information on a timely basis.

[benny]

Self defeating? I think not, look I think she should have been fired, but that call is not mine to make its Harper's.

Non-self-defeating persons write to MPs to express that kind of wish.

Edited June 12, 2009 by benny

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Non-self-defeating persons write to MPs to express that kind of wish.

I have written dozens of letters to politicians. I have had King Ralph respond on real fancy letterhead three times, my current Premier I have not had cause to write to, my MLA's and MP's are all Conservatives, so we are on opposite sides of the street so to speak. I have had literally dozens of letters published in the Edmonton Sun and the Edmonton Journal over the years.

So there!!!!