More on implied bias and some suggestions for how you can help
I have written before about implied bias. It is an issue that concerns me a lot.
Implied bias is in many ways worse that overt bias because its insidious and because it happens without people noticing it can persist for very long periods of time, continuing to have an affect long after overt bias has been called out and has become acceptable.
I have had a long standing concern about the harm being done by implied bias that occasionally occurs within our national broadcaster, the CBC. It does not surprise me that it happens as the people with editorial control within national broadcasters typically majored in the arts where they would have been indoctrinated in anti-nuclear sentiments. I suspect they don’t even realise they are doing it.
But understanding aside, its not appropriate and I believe it needs to end.
To that end I wrote to the CBC’s “What on Earth Program” about environmental issues and observed that they don’t ever seem to talk about nuclear issues despite that fact that
“Presently there is much attention being paid to nuclear across the country. Saskatchewan and Alberta are planning to “go nuclear” for the first time in their history with new Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technologies, Ontario is making plans to massively expand its nuclear fleet and Canada is financially supporting international nuclear projects involving Canadian suppliers. As well as reducing Canada’s emissions the Canadian nuclear industry took a world leadership role in a new era of nuclear power when OPG became the first utility to commit to deploying an SMR and precipitated similar moves across the country and the world. At the same time Canada is contemplating new investment in its indigenous CANDU technology and Canadian companies now own Westinghouse one of the World’s largest suppliers of nuclear technology and services. Canada is also one of the world’s leading supplier of Uranium the fuel used in nuclear reactors. Even BC and Quebec are considering new nuclear having been against it for many years!
We even have companies developing fusion technologies that may revolutionize power generation.
There are so many stories to be told about how Canada’s nuclear industry is transforming clean power generation not just in Canada but across the planet. I think it is imperative that these stories are told to your listeners”.
I was pleasantly surprised that Molly Segal, the producer of the program, wrote back almost immediately. She reminded me that they had done a program on SMRs in 2020 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whatonearth/can-small-nuclear-reactors-help-canada-reach-its-net-zero-2050-goals-some-experts-are-skeptical-1.5792823.
Unfortunately, all this did was remind me of the program and the fact that while they had felt they had to discuss SMRs the object of the program was very clearly on trying to strangle the emerging SMR program at birth. While they did include both sides of the argument it was dominated by anti-nuclear sentiment and guided by a sub-heading that said “Nuclear power is like fighting world hunger with caviar,’ says researcher Benjamin Sovacool”.
Ignoring the overt bias in this previous program my concern was the implied bias of
- Not updating the listeners to let them know that although they had implied SMRs were likely never going to happen they were actually happening.
- Not mentioning anything else that was happening in the nuclear field when decisions being made were radically affecting Canada’s GHG emissions, a primary focus of the program.
It’s implied because its not doing something that is having the affect its not doing it.
I should add that they also did an unbelievably misleading program about the near disaster in Alberta in which a series of wind and solar apologists tried to suggest against all the evidence that the problem was not caused by the excess amount wind and solar on their grid and bizarrely failed to mention the conclusion the province had very clearly and vocally expressed, that they needed more power that they could rely on.
Take a step back and you can clearly see that anyone using What on Earth to inform their thinking about environmental issues would still believe SMRs are never going to happen and that nuclear is playing no role whatsoever in achieving Canada’s net zero ambitions. As such it’s not surprising that there are people still out there that think nuclear is not needed! That’s the affect of implied bias in action.
So I wrote back:
“Thanks for responding. It is really appreciated.
When I read the transcript you sent, I remembered that I had heard that program but given that it was four years ago had indeed forgotten about it.
At the time you did that piece SMRs were just emerging as a possibility with no firm orders in Canada and no real discussion about a firm order. In that context the will they/won’t they debate you ran was appropriate.
In the following four years much of the “won’t they” discussion has been blown out of the water. The impact of wind and solar has been small and Provinces like Alberta have recognised there is only so far you can go with them. There are now firm orders for SMRs, and the discussion is no longer about whether they will make a contribution but how big a contribution they can make. As I say Canada has played a world leading role in changing that perspective and we should be celebrating the difference we have made.
As a responsible broadcaster you should be keen to update that debate showing how many of the questions have now been answered and profiling the progress that is being made.
Also of course its important to ask whether a four-year gap between reports is appropriate for the technology that is likely to make more difference than any other to our domestic emissions especially when so much has changed.
But that is just about SMRs and that is but a small sideline to the nuclear story. Four years ago there was no prospect of the lifetime of the Pickering reactors being extended and no one was even considering the possibility that there could be new full-scale reactors in Ontario. Today, we see that Pickering will be extended, that Bruce Power have initiated a program likely to lead to 4,800 MWe of new clean nuclear power and OPG are currently hunting new sites. In addition, the federal government is providing financing for the construction of new nuclear using Canadian technology in Romania and is considering further investment in developing the CANDU technology (there rumour is there could be announcements shortly).
Any one of these projects will offset more GHG production than most of the rest of the projects you have discussed on your show all added together and could put Canada on a world leading path to net zero. I cannot see how you can ignore nuclear any longer given its relevance to and impact on the issues that your show is about.
I hope I can convince you that an update on your SMR report is needed and that a broader review of the impact of nuclear would be appropriate. The Canadian Nuclear Society would be very pleased to help if I have. “
Note the very clear statement “But that is just about SMRs and that is but a small sideline to the nuclear story”.
So I was surprised to get a response that only focused on SMRs
“Hi Neil,
I do think when there are SMRs being built it will be a good reason for us to consider the topic. You mention firm orders from provinces — are there any currently breaking ground or slated to in 2025?
Thank you
Molly”
And having been asked a question I had an obligation to respond.
“Molly,
Understood re SMRs. I will answer your question later in this response.
But I feel that you are falling into the trap that many people have fallen into and that is to believe SMRs are the be all and end all of the future of the nuclear industry and are the only thing worth talking about. It’s not true. The big savings in emissions will come from the large-scale plants.
The big change that has taken place over the last year is that large-scale plants are now very much back on the agenda. The Darlington SMR has had a lot of attention but its only around 300MWe (I think they have uprated it but do not have the uprated number in front of me) if they build all four that’s 1,200MWe maybe 1,300. Bruce Power plan to build four times as much! This is what will keep Ontario as one of the cleanest grids in the world.
The federal investment in the Romania project is also a very important development. It may not reduce Canadian emissions, but it will be Canada helping reduce world emissions and GHGs are entirely fungible, so it does not matter where in the world the savings are made the effects (including the effects on Canadians) are exactly the same. This is a huge contribution that Canada is making.
The refurbishment program is really also one that should be worth a mention. If we had not refurbished the nuclear stations Ontario would be one of the few jurisdictions in the world that would be trending towards massively increased emissions intensity and emissions. These projects are coming in early and the GHG savings for each day they are early are very significant.
With regard to SMRs, Ontario (OPG) has an order for one GE BWRX-300 and possibly four…..the commercial details have not been made public as far as I am aware.
Saskatchewan (SaskPower)is making plans for two of the same units but is not pulling the trigger until OPG have started to demonstrate success. They do not need to rush their decision as they have just built new gas plants and can run them until an SMR ordered around 2030 would be online.
New Brunswick (New Brunswick Power) was pursuing advanced reactor designs but has recently been given $25 million to study other options and that will likely lead to another province ordering the GE machine.
The only other options these provinces have is gas which, given the potential change in government, may be their go to option anyway, and we will all regret they did not firm up their plans earlier.
Alberta, as you will know from your report on their crisis, pursued wind and solar but that got them in a lot of trouble, and they now need nuclear, but their deregulated, private industry, approach to power generation is preventing them from taking the steps they need to take. We could see announcements from there shortly.
But again…the big story is about how the OPG decision precipitated actions around the world. Everyone was waiting for someone to take the first step and because we took it many other nations are now moving ahead. Once again it is Canada taking a leading role in reducing world emissions in a very significant way.
I realise that the positive aspects of nuclear may be a surprise to some of your listeners but if you truly want to help the earth these stories are worth profiling because they make an enormous difference. Failing to mention them while profiling much less significant projects implies that these contributions are not important and misleads your listeners.
Neil”
I thought that was fairly compelling, but it was met with silence. And that silence fuels a belief I have held for a long time that the team at What on Earth are actually anti-nuclear and rather than report in an unbiased way they are comfortable projecting that bias on their listeners.
Until now, despite this being a personal initiative and not a CNS sanctioned one, I had been following the guidance CNS has given me about its style of communication and that is to stay positive and not be critical of the actions of others.
But having been stone-walled I did not give up and escalated it to a comment direct to CBC about my concerns https://cbchelp.cbc.ca/hc/en-ca/requests/new. So far all I have is the standard “your comment has been received, and we may or not respond comment” and I suspect that is as far as it will go. But what if we all did it and they got 1,000 comments!
The Canadian Nuclear Society
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.