Speaking Out words Uranium and Radation is en- ough to make most people nervous, there are plenty of reasons for such fears ; One person who knows this well is Gordon Edwards, President the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and professor of mathematics and science at Montreal’s Vanier College. Ed- wards has spent a good deal of his life researching the nuclear cycle and serving as a paid consultant on - government ~ commissions. when he examines uranium = min- ing, he sees a nightmare of environ- mental dangers almost everywhere he looks. “The main impact is the large amount of nuclear waste,” says Ed- wards. As mines last for a couple of decades at best, when. the compa- nies pack up, the local area is stuck Graphic/The Varsity with the _ pollutive aftermath. “You’re left holding the bag,” he says. That bag is a particularly noxious brand of industrial waste known as tailings. “Tailings cause con- tamination of waterways and _parti- cularly the groundwater - that vast ocean of underground water so much of us rely on for wellwater and irrigation,” he says. Eighty-five percent of the radioactivity in uranium is actually left hehind after processing - left behind to seep into the ground with the rain or drift over low fences into neighboring land. In the Annapolis Valley, such contamination would be _ irreversib- ly disastrous. “Actually, what they’re doing is extracting the less dangerous substances and leaving the really dangerous stuff behind,” says Ed- wards. For . potential workers inside a of, And — mine - likely to come from the surrounding area - life is no picnic either. A 1980 B.C. Medical Association report on mine safety exposed a two-to-four times higher rate of lung cancer than the normal rate. Add to the above the links between uranium exports and _ fuel for nuclear weapons, and you _ have only a few of the concerns Nova Scotia residents had with uranium exploration in 1980 and 1981. Because of these fears, . when Aquataine Ltd. (later known as Kidd Creek Mines) called a public meeting to “allay public fears”, the result was a packed meeting hall of people looking for answers. What they weren’t prepared for was the spectacle of people flown in from Calgary and Toronto telling them there were no risks - absolutely none - associated with uranium mining in their area. “If they had just been willing to say, “There are some risks, however we are willing to do these safety things,’ I think more people would have been willing to say perhaps...” says Donna Smyth, still struck by the meeting’s revelations. “They took a line which would later become familiar, which is just absolute denial of anything which might be a risk to public health or degradation of the environment.” Soon public pressure brought to bear on Nova Scotia’s Tory govern- ment forced a moratorium’ on¢ uranium exploration - until a one man commission’ of _ Provincial Court Judge Robert McCleave could examine the issues and file his re- port. That report has yet tobe made public, but when Dr. Leo Yaffe toured the Maritimes as President of the Chemical Institute _ of Canada giving his speech en- titled, “The Hazards of not going Nuclear’, the McCleave commis- sion was big news. The doctor and Donna Smyth were on a collision course. The Players: Donna Smyth isn’t quite sure how or when she developed her driving passion for social justice, but it may have been during her childhood in the foothills of the Rockies. In touch with a wild natural setting and the “self-democratic tradition” her working-class family provided, Smyth eventually felt compelled to work for an alternative to the status quo. “I suppose growing up in that environment leads you to _ have certain expectations about the way people live,” she says. From an involvement with the peace movemnet which began while growing up in the 50’s - “I think many of us were children of the bomb” - Smyth grew into fight- ing for women’s rights during and after her university education. While living and studying in B.C., Toronto and London, England, she saw how interrelated the causes of feminism and peace were. Ironical- ly, the first stirrings which connec- ted a love for the environment with her other beliefs came in the middle . of grimy London - during a garbage and sewer workers strike. As city life deteriorated, “You begin to see how fragile the kind of life you lead is in that situation,” she recalls. After moving to Hant’s County, “Falling in love with this place,” and begining to teach at Acadia in 1973, Smyth shored up her _ personal beliefs by working on her small El- lershouse farm and striving for self- sufficiency. When not tending to the goats, chickens, corn or her students, she found time to be an active member of NAGS, an all- women political performance group of the Voice of Women, and write articles for progressive publications such as This Magazine. “We all have a deference to authority because of the way we’re trianed,” she says, refusing to bow down to that impulse. “As a teacher I realize there’s something with our eductaional system if those of us who’ve gone through still have to overcome a sense of awe, especially in questioning scientists and scien- tific matters.” Enter Dr. Leo Yaffe. Yaffe, who refused to comment when contac- ted, is a study in contrasts from Donna Smyth. Professor Emeritus, McGill (MacDonald Campus) professor of Chemistry, and a former Administration Vice- President of McGill, Yaffe is nothing if not establishment. Since 1952, Yaffe has worked at McGill in advanced nuclear chemistry research, but prior to that, his life led him in a direction so far from ‘Smyth’s it would be difficult to in- ‘vent a greater antithesis. From 1943 to 1952, Yaffe was a research worker on a project which was little known at the begining, but has had a shattering impact on us all. Known as the Canadian Atomic Energy Project, it was part of the Manhattan Project, the in- vention of the Atomic Bomb. “Canada’s involvement was two- fold,” says Gordon Edwards. “We supplied uranium, and had a research team at the Universite de Montreal working on the most ef- ficient way of seperating pluto- nium.” Yaffe was among that team. Since then, Yaffe has been an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy, with. his career probably culminating with the assemblage of his “health hazards” lecture. Pub- lished in the December, 1979 issue of “Chemistry in Canada’, it vigorously promotes the use of nuclear energy and lists what it presents as the dangers of the alter- natives. He had given the speech many times before, in many parts of the country. So the stops in Halifax, Antigon- ish, | Sackville, | Fredricton, and Wolfville may have seemed nothing unusual for him. But for Donna Smyth, it was. something which could not go unchallenged. She was far from the first to ques- tion his paper’s assumptions. Dr. David Brooks, a resource economist for the American institute, En- ergyprobe, testified at the trial that Yaffe paper was “predominately political.” According to Gordon Ed- wards, it paints a horror story of a world dying as a result of burning fossil fuels, then offers nuclear power as the’ only alternative without really discussing its dangers. “It attempted to prove one thing is good because another thing is bad,” says Edwards. All that was left after Donna Smyth’s opinion piece was nearly three years of waiting for the trial. Endgame: After taking so long to come to trial, the court case proceeded quickly during it’s two days. The case eventually centered around Smyth’s use of the word ‘paraded’ in the sentence cited by Yaffe libel- lous. “The prosecution said it meant he was in the pocket of the nuclear industry,” says Eleanor McLean, a journalist who covered the trial. In his letter to the Chronicle-Herald demanding a retraction, Yaffe sta- ted, “Since 1952, I have not recieved a penny, research grant (or other considerations) from any ‘ nuclear agency or institution - governmen- tal or otherwise. In his attempt to prove Yaffe’s reputation was damaged by Donna Smythe’s article, Yaffe’s lawyer called only one witness to the stand. As that witness, Dalhousie Senate Chair Dr. William Jones, said the article wouldn’t affect Yaffe’s possi- bly being invited to lecture at Dalhousie, it is questionable how much his testimony had to do with Yaffe’s case. Another move on behalf of the plaintiffs may have been much more effective for Donna Smyth. Among the exhibits entered . for Yaffe’s case was a letter by a Univer-. sity of Toronto professor which asked Yaffe about his “exchange with some anti-nuclear people in Nova Scotia”. “We have to find some way to deal with these people,” it noted, and said that his upcoming retirement would leave him time to “nail” those “socio-political adven- tures.” A letter by Yaffe wishing him luck was also entered into the record. “It may have been a sign of how sure they were of their position,” says MacLean. The question begged to be asked: Which side was con- ducting the real harassment campaign? In turn, Smyth countered with witnesses who debunked the na- ture of his lecture, established the credibility of lay experts, and rela- ted how scientific reputations are made and unmade. After being grilled on the stand, Smyth watched as the judge termed her article wording as ‘strident’ in his final statement. He did give some indica- tions he considered that they should find her guilty,” says MacLean. But partly due to the past record of Nova Scotia judge’s decisions, Smyth had opted for a jury trial. “T think the jury were trying to suppress their smile because they realized the verdict rested with them, not the judge,” says MacClean. Their verdict of not guilty was unanimous. It all somehow adds up to a happy, if qualified, ending for | Donna Smyth. The other endings will come when her legal bills are paid, when uranium = mining is finally banned everywhere - a five- year moratorium of uranium min- ing in Nova Soctia was_ recently announced, then Canada refuses to participate in the arms race, and so on off into the distance. But right now, chalk up one small victory for Donna Smyth.