Nanoose Conversion Campaign

2150 Maple Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3T3 (604)739-0432 Tel/Fax e-mail: iabbey@alternatives.com

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NEWS RELEASE - July 24, 1996

DAMN THE TORPEDOES...

An Economic Assessment of CFMETR - Nanoose Bayar

NANAIMO - Local taxpayers are shelling out more than $18 million a year in subsidies so US nuclear attack submarines can continue with Cold War games at the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges (CFMETR) at Nanoose Bay, according to an independent study released by University of Victoria economist Dr. Jack Ruitenbeek. And if one of those nuclear attack subs were to experience a "most likely worst case scenario" nuclear accident, the economic loss alone would be more than $5.56 billion a year.

Professor Ruitenbeek who has a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and is a founder of the International Society for Ecological Economics, has served on the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment. In his study Ruitenbeek says Canada's "damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead policy" of maintaining the Nanoose Bay facility "neglects economic realities."

CFMETR's Cmdr. Mike Dalzell claims the base puts $10 million into the local economy and provides 152 direct and indirect jobs. But Ruitenbeek determined that "current activities, in fact, veil implicit hidden subsidies because of negelcted indirect economic impacts. A valuation of selected 'subsidies' suggests thsat they exceed $18 million annually. These are the real economic costs to British Columbia and Canada." According to Ruitenbeek the land subsidy is $6.72 million/yr while environmental impacts of onsite contamination from hazardous goods is $12.02 million for a total subsidy of $18.78 million.

As for jobs, "single use conversion to activities such as light commercial or small scale agriculture/mariculture would generate total employment from 102% to 361% of the status quo," the study says, "while balanced mixed use conversion would generate 248 jobs annually." But income and jobs aren't the only factors when examining a facility that harbours nuclear-powered attack warships.

According to CFMETR's own Nuclear Emergency Response Plan, "there is a real potential ... of a nuclear emergency... involving radioactive material which has resulted in or is likely to result in, a hazard to life and property." That hazard, Ruitenbeek determined, would result in a $5.56 billion drop in economic output as well as a population decline of 463,00 people. "Human health conditions in the Basin, moreover, would decline by 22 per cent."

There is one cost-benefit of a worst case scenario. The study finds "environmental pollution would show an improvement of 7 per cent because of the lower levels of population and economic activity."

-30-

Information: Dr. Jack Ruitenbeek (250)247-8436, email: <hjruiten@web.net>.

E-mail: <iabbey@alternatives.com>