Letter from Sunshine Goldsberry
The economic benefits from CFMETR
in Nanoose are highly overstated.
As taxpayers, we pay an estimated 18$M a year to keep the base open
and
upgraded. Proponents of the base suggest 6-8$M benefits from
the base
into the community. So, it's definitely an economic benefit for
each of
the 65 local families who have workers at the base to keep things as
they
are, but for the rest of us citizens it's a losing proposition, by
my
math. A few years ago, an 11$M jetty was built at CFMETR just so the
big
Tridents (intercontinental nuclear ballistic missile subs) could get
to
the dock. Meanwhile, the local municipalities lose economic development
opportunities and the resulting tax revenues from this stupendous
oceanfront property. UVic economist Jack Ruitenbeck, in his study
of
Nanoose, determined that applying the lowest density zoning to the
land
would result in double the number of current job opportunities.
Who
really benefits has been the USA, the major user of CFMETR, who reportedly
saves 65$M a year by using Nanoose. The offer of 4$M a year rent
(feds to
province, up considerable from current $1 a year) doesn't look so terrific
when we look at the accounts on the bigger books. Who ends up
paying when
the books get balanced -- you and me, for why?
The why is supposed
to be our commitment to NATO and keeping us
safe. If these nuclear subs are so safe, then why are they not
allowed in
the New York harbour? Japan, Spain, France, and New Zealand have rules,
too, about nuclear subs near population centres. It's just not
true that
Canada couldn't say "no", too.. Puerto Rico just told the US
Navy to "get
Out" after a local citizen was accidentally killed near a testing range
(ominous reminder of the US Navy's "misfortunate error" in l998 when
sailors opened fire with .50 calibre machine guns on hikers along a
coastal hiking trail on southern Vancouver Island).
Even the
US Navy recognizes the finite possibilities of nuclear
accidents which may just be why the testing is done at Nanoose (someone
else's backyard). But Canada, which has no experience in nuclear
sub
technology -- no problems. Ignorance is not bliss, if we read
between the
lines, it's just convenient. Defense Minister Eggleton said recently
US
subs don't carry nuclear weapons. Perhaps some might leave the
warheads
behind during tests in Canada though it wouldn't make much sense for
the
Trident subs to do so (there have been 3 at Nanoose in recent years);
the
whole point of intercontinental ballistic subs is to be always ready.
The
l991 Pres. Bush nuclear weapons de-alerting directive does not
apply to
times of international tension, like the war in the Balkans, maybe?
During which time two nuclear subs visited Vancouver Island and were
sighted dangerously close to ferry and pleasure boat traffic.
Despite CFMETR Commander
Buckingham's assurances in local papers
that Canada is in charge and he isn't personally worried about any
danger
to his family, I feel he overstated his case. The Underwater Warfare
Research facility at Keyport, Wa lists Nanoose as a satellite facility
of
the US Navy on their website. In l992, when residents from the
Sunshine
Coast and Gabriola Isl complained about noise of the US tests to CFMETR
headquarters they were told they, " had no control over what went on
aboard ships when they were on the range". So much for the Canadian
Navy
being "in charge" of US operations which is 75-85% of activity on the
range.
OK, say there are no nuclear
weapons at all which is what 70% of
BCers say they want. What about the lack of containment for the nuclear
reactors that power the subs? They are floating Chernobyls and
getting to
the endpoint of their useful working lives. No accidents so far?
Good,
let's quit while we are ahead! Especially since the base's emergency
plan
only takes care of its own. Dealing with an emergency (nuclear
or
otherwise) is up to federal and provincial emergency prep. programs.
And,
the federal Auditor General, in May, reiterated what a sham these programs
are, "most of our concerns about preparation for a nuclear
emergency...have not been addressed". This is after years of
unsatisfactory reports and he noted that the Deputy Ministers responsible
hadn't even been attending the meetings for 4 years. So, we know
no one
will help us civilians, or the birds or the fish if something were
to go
dreadfully wrong.
We could factor in
human error of sailors handling dangerous
technology, boredom from repitition, occasional faked data (4 sailors
from
aircraft carrier USS Nimitz publicly stated there had been faked data
on
nuclear qualification tests and reactor problems. "If there was
a reactor
accident, we could not contain the radiation"). I am far from
reassured
by either the Defense Minister or Base Commander that the slim chances
of
catastrophe can perpetually be avoided.
Maybe it will
be just a little accident or a series of small
environmental impacts from base activity. The environmental study
that
our local MLA feels so reassured by was another classic case of
overstatement. The study apparently excluded American subs (hey,
I
thought they were the majority of the base activity?) and the junk
dumped
on the ocean floor and was still considered so controversial that it's
public release was stalled for months. To ignore thousands of tons
of
copper, lead, lithium, hydrogen cyanide and other substances unknown
to
fish habitat is problematic enough. But, it's further interesting to
note
that the Canadian Shipping Act says naval vessels don't have to report
spills or similar accidents. And, we know these things have happened
here
as a Nanaimo newspaper reporter, in l995, witnessed a 3 km long jetfuel
spill in the Georgia Strait trailing the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier.
Good
thing no one lit up a cigarette!
From the log of ships
that have visited Nanoose over the years,
more than half had small accidents (coolant spills, etc) elsewhere.
And
subs have collided or nearly so with fishing and pleasure crafts in
the
Island inland waters. Remember the US sub in the Fraser River
that
tangled with fish boat nets in l991? Or the sinking of a pleasure craft
in
the Strait by a Chilean sub visiting Nanoose a few years ago?
Or, the
base official that was interviewed a few years ago about possible sewage
contamination in Nanoose Bay the day after a sub left the base?
At the
time, he said proudly that the bay was clean, "they dump in the Strait".
Great news, bet the taxpayers could really save a bundle if we took
the
same approach to garbage and sewage treatment here that the US Navy
takes.
And, the residents and tourists to Qualicum Beach, bet they don't mind
the
occasional sonobouy rolling onto the beaches trailed by a slick of
oily
stuff. Maybe one doesn't hurt too much, but how about a few thousands
floating hither and yon; no wonder the Canadian Navy wants us to call
right away if we see one.
So, Minister Eggleton and
Commander Buckingham, and average
Georgia Strait resident, I will need a lot more reassuring before I
am
convinced that nuclear ships and warfare training is a good thing for
us
Canadians who live anywhere near Nanoose. Or Esquimalt, or Vancouver,
for
that matter, since nuclear subs and ships freely enter those harbours,
too, and without even the excuse that they have to "to conduct important
testing". Maybe to prepare for the kind of war that no one wants,
no one
could win, but, who can complain, it provides a few jobs and it seemed
like a good idea at the time. Well, the times are achanging,
and as
usual, us average Janes and Joes are way ahead in thinking than the
still
stuck in the Cold War (read stone-age) federal government.
N.S. Goldsberry
(250) 248-8809
Box 429, Coombs, BC V0R1M0
email sunshine@macn.bc.ca