Letters: Columnist’s Saskatoon arena argument filled with fallacies

Article content

Phil Tank’s opinion piece on Saskatoon’s proposed arena district (Feb. 24) falls prey to several logical fallacies, weakening his argument.

He asserts a false dilemma by framing the choice as either extravagantly renovating SaskTel Centre or building a new downtown arena, neglecting other potentially better options that balance cost, community benefits and functionality.

Article content

Article content

His appeal to authority, by relying on the SaskTel Centre CEO for cost projections, ignores the need for a wide-ranging analysis, sidelining independent assessments and varied viewpoints that could provide a fuller financial picture.

Tank’s argument is further diminished by a bandwagon fallacy, suggesting that since the council approved the project and there’s little public outcry, it must be the right decision. This overlooks the importance of engaging the entire community in discussions about significant financial commitments.

By labelling renovation proponents’ arguments as simplistic (straw man), he fails to engage seriously with their concerns, disrespecting the democratic process. Comparing the renovation’s costs to more expensive projects (appeal to worse problems), he trivializes valid concerns about fiscal responsibility.

Accusing opponents of laziness or apathy (ad hominem) shuts down open debate, essential for public decision-making.

Lastly, assuming limited opposition equates to widespread agreement (hasty generalisation) ignores the diversity of community opinion, which cannot be gauged merely by committee feedback.

Article content

Article content

An informed decision on the arena must be free from fallacies, embracing thorough, transparent analysis that allows for prioritization of Saskatoon’s long-term interests. Citizens deserve a vote on such a massive tax burden.

Jeff Phillips, Saskatoon

Consider reusing spent nuclear fuel

As a physicist visiting Saskatoon for experiments, and as one who lives close to Yucca Mountain where there are efforts to store nuclear waste deep inside the mountain, I read: “Opinion: We need to rethink how we intend to store nuclear power waste” (Feb. 20) with great interest.

Nuclear energy represents the best way to supply large quantities of reliable energy with low greenhouse-gas emissions. That said, there is one solution to seriously reducing waste that has not been implemented in North America: reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to be used in breeder reactors.

This has been done in China, Japan, India and Russia for decades, and reduces the waste by a factor of 100 or so. Beyond this, as pointed out in the article, the “spent” fuel is still very energetic. Why not use the latent heat generated to help heat homes with an isolated primary/secondary heat transfer system?

Article content

Research should also be supported aimed at creating rugged direct energy converters that will convert the highly ionizing radiation from spent fuel directly into electricity. The point here is that there are many ways to treat and reduce nuclear waste beyond just burying it for a few thousand years.

Michael Pravica, Henderson, NV

Article content