Skip to content

Letter: Forests versus toxic nuclear power

Otherwise, our race may also be history by 2050
letters

How much different could two recent Citizen letters be?

Margaret Cox wisely asks us to question provincial-electoral candidates about legally saving our precious old-growth forests; Greg Mathews suggests probing “safe and secure" nuclear power based on spent uranium.

We favour a logging ban in B.C. so our crucial forests can heal and offer warden-management jobs and tourism revenues, plus carbon-credits totalling millions.

Our heinous clear-cut-at-any-cost industry has left loggers laid off and ecosystems ruined while rapacious timber companies are so desperate for fibre they’re eyeing our old-growth forests containing priceless biodiversity.

Mathews says B.C. should develop new-fangled nuclear power.

Decades of nuclear fallout and toxic testing, poisonous radiation leaks, and contaminated nuclear-waste sites has left the villainous industry on most engaged folks’ taboo lists.

Conversely, fully developing green energy offers humanity clean, safe power, untold profits plus tons of jobs.

The choice is crystal to forward-thinking citizens. Otherwise, our race may also be history by 2050.

Yours in a future possibilities,

Peter W. Rusland

North Cowichan