Sandra Finley

2011-04 The University: Are We Living in a Brave New Academy? The Conditioning Centre.

 Economic Indicators, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Take back the University  No Responses »
Feb 142012
 

Sub-title:  The Brave New Academy, The undermining of democracy.

From “A Brave New World”:   For true blissed-out and vacant servitude, though, you need an otherwise sophisticated society where no serious history is taught.

– – – – – – — – – –

Leonardo da Vinci: Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.

– – – – – – — – –

In the corporate model, producing food is no different than producing Barbie dolls or Agent Orange.

– – – – – – – – – – — – – – –

CONTENTS

  1. BRAVE NEW WORLD / ACADEMY.  THE “CONDITIONING CENTRE”.
  2. College of Agriculture – Biotech Chemical GMO.  Public vrs Corporate interest.
  3. College of Law – Patent Laws for life forms.  Public vrs Corporate interest.
  4. Colleges of Pharmacy, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine.  Removal of cause public interest.  In conflict with the corporate interest.  Health Research Institutes.
  5. Corruption in the Administration of the University.  Richard Florizone Vice-President Finance.  Public vrs corporate interests of the nuclear and tar sands industries.
  6. Who pays for the “Conditioning Centre” that is the University?
  7. The undermining of democracy.  An act of treason.  Our knowledge base.
  8. The Theft of the University.  The owners, the people of Saskatchewan, will either stand up and fight to take back what they own.  Or they will suck their thumbs and then cry when it’s too late.  Which one?
  9. John Ralston Saul on “respectability”.
  10. NOTICE OF MEETING CONTAINS BIOGRAPHY OF FLORIZONE

= = = = = = = == = = = = =

I speak on behalf of many people in this province, the owners of the University.

You will understand that my remarks apply to some people in The Academy, definitely not all.

1.    BRAVE NEW WORLD / ACADEMY.  THE “CONDITIONING CENTRE”.

Not everyone is familiar with Aldous Huxley’s book “Brave New World”.   It was published in 1932.  Popular literature of the times forecast  that just societies of happy people would arise out of the industrial economy.  Huxley was skeptical.  He saw the industrial model unfolding to a negative utopia (called the World State) with the consumption of disposable consumer goods its ultimate goal.

In Huxley’s futuristic novel people are indoctrinated by listening to audio tapes while they sleep, and also through attendance at the Conditioning Centre.  Unhappiness is resolved by taking drugs, pills called soma. And so on.

I bring the experience of the activist to the question posed:  are we living in a “brave new academy”?  Is the University of Saskatchewan  an institution for “Blissed Out and Vacant Servitude”? to Lord Henry Ford, the inventor of the assembly line?

Is the University a Conditioning Centre where people are programmed to serve Lord Ford or Monsanto or Cameco or Bayer Crop Science or Apotex (the drug company) or the Nuclear Waste Management Organization or Bruce Power or Tar Sands Quest or other corporations of the industrial economy?

PUBLIC VERSUS CORPORATE INTEREST

The question boils down to:  does this institution, the University, serve the corporate interest or the public interest?

It’s an easy question to answer.

2.   COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE – BIOTECHED FOOD SUPPLY.  PUBLIC VS CORPORATE INTEREST.

Corporate ownership of food is profitable, it is no different from private or corporate ownership of the energy sources, for example oil and gas.

The last two decades have clearly demonstrated that biotechnology coupled with patent laws are the tools used to further consolidate the privatization of the food supply.   We have been in a ferocious battle for the last two decades to stop the “ownership” of seeds, the basis of the food supply.

The College of Agriculture has been the servant of biotech corporations like Monsanto and later Bayer Crop Science, etc. for decades now.  I have spoken with professors who have been marginalized at the College of Agriculture because they have been unwilling to buy into the one single orthodoxy – chemical/biotech industrial corporate agriculture.

The Conditioning Centre is not about dialogue and discussion.  It is not about bringing the knowledge of many people together to create a better understanding.  It is not about teaching.

It is about offering a single, unchallenged perspective.

The Brave New Academy “credentials” those who complete the indoctrination programme.  They dutifully go forth to fill roles in the Government of the World State.

There is no public interest served by the development of crops that are engineered to be resistant to chemical applications.  There is no public interest in the increasing chemical loads in our food, water, air and soil.   Let me use a recent example of the huge cost created by a University in servitude to corporate interests.

Triffid Flax was developed at the University of Saskatchewan.  It was engineered to be able to withstand the build-up of chemical residues in the soil.  That’s a bloody serious situation.   The public interest would obviously be in protecting the means of producing food, the soil.  A build-up of chemical residues that interferes with the growth of plants obviously calls for a cessation in chemical use.

In 2001, because the main markets for Canadian flax do not want GMO’s, all Triffid seed was collected and destroyed, at considerable expense.  Tax-payers paid for its development, for its destruction; it did not end there.  In the late summer of 2009 food inspectors found GMO-contaminated – i.e. Triffid – – in the flax on store shelves in Europe.  There were huge product recall costs for Europeans and a great deal of anger against Canadian producers.  Flax markets went down the drain.  And now, there is the cost of inspecting all truckloads of flax in Canada for GMO Triffid ontamination.   Huge costs borne by Canadians and Europeans, the consequence of the University working to serve the interests of the chemical – biotech corporations.

The University passes itself off as a centre of logic or the rational.   It is highly irrational, indeed stupid, to develop crops that are resistant to chemical applications.  It only accelerates the development of plants and insects and fungus that are resistant to those applications.  So then we need more toxic and more chemicals in order to kill off the “resistant” specimens.   It is a suicidal spiral.

What word describes those who teach that this makes sense?  Propagandist?  Insane?  Diabolical?

Another example to demonstrate the reality of the Brave New Academy:

4. College of Law – Patent Laws for life forms.  Public vrs Corporate interest.

The corporate interest is the patenting – ownership – of seeds.

The public interest is public ownership of the Commons (in this example seeds), that upon which we are all dependent for survival.  The College of Law is the Conditioning Centre for the chemical-biotech industrial food supply through courses on Intellectual Property – in this example, patents.  How absurd it is that life forms can be patented.  But a course in intellectual property certifies the student to run the assembly line of producing patents.  It does not enter into a vigorous debate about the VALIDITY of the laws, or how to change them to serve the public interest.

5. Colleges of Pharmacy, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine. Removal of cause, public interest. In conflict with the corporate interest. Health Research Institutes.

The public interest is in the removal of CAUSE of disease.   Get rid of the carcinogens, teratogens, hormone-disrupting chemicals we are pumping into our land, air, water and food.

The corporate biotech pharmaceutical interest is in propaganda related to “find a cure” which, even if it ever happened (they’ve been at it for 50 years so far) does not make sense.   It is an unhumane idea to say that it’s okay for all these people to get the diseases, we’re going to “Find a cure” and “treat” you.   The money-maker is the development of more drugs, of course.  And so we have Apotex of Nancy Oliveri, University of Toronto fame, now at the University of Saskatchewan.

The Strengthening of immune systems and removal of cause should be fundamental in health care.  But there is no corporate interest in that.

University researchers get funding through the publicly-funded Canadian and Saskatchewan Health Research Institutes.   They sound good, until you know that one of the criteria for funding is that the research “has the potential for commercialization”.   Oops!  there goes the public interest.  Do we hear any vehement protests from “the influential”?

As tax-payers who fund the research,  we are paying the research and development costs  for the corporations.   Our money is not used in service of the public good.  At horrific cost.

You might think this is a rant on GMO’s, chemicals and soma or anti-depressant drugs.   Look at the Canadian Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan, another Conditioning Centre.

And what a big one that is!  Richard Florizone, Vice-President of Finance, University of Saskatchewan, chaired the so-called “UDP Report” (Uranium Development Partnership).  The Report was prepared for the Government by an industry-stacked panel.   I believe it was Public Outrage that forced a public-hearing process.

I sat in the auditorium in the Diefenbaker Centre last summer and listened to Richard Florizone’s presentation on the UDP Report (he gave the same presentation at the U of Regina – see below.  It contains a biography of Florizone).  The Report is what the industry wants:

  • Nuclear reactors
  • High-level radioactive waste disposal in Saskatchewan
  • Expanded exploration and mining
  • A training centre for workers.

Florizone brought in a seemingly-unrelated example to demonstrate our ability to use technology to solve problems.  He reassured the audience:  why look – we solved the acid rain problem in Canada.  I was appalled and could no longer contain my anger over the half-truths and then this utter lie in his presentation.  I raised my hand in protest, saying “The acid rain problem in Canada has most certainly NOT been solved.  I am stupefied that you would make such a claim.  Saskatchewan is down-wind from the tar sands. The nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide coming off the tar sands have already acidified parts of Northern Saskatchewan PAST critical load limits.”

Florizone’s response was, “Oh, did I say the problem has been solved?  What I MEANT to say was that the problem with acid rain from coal-fired power plants has been solved.”  I responded.  In the end Florizone asked “Well, do you agree with the statement “The acid rain problem from coal-fired power plants has been solved.?”  My reply was  “No. But I COULD agree with the statement that the acid rain problem in Canada has NOT been solved and it is especially serious in Northern Saskatchewan where it is killing the lakes and the land.”

Is this just a poor choice of example on Florizone’s part?  Not at all.  So-called “small” nuclear reactors are needed for further development of the tar sands, both in Alberta and Saskatchewan.   The situation in northern Saskatchewan from acid rain from tar sands development will be worse than it was when the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) made the Saskatchewan situation known in 2005.   (The north is dying.)

A statement by the Vice President of the University that the acid rain problem has been solved is a lie, but a very convenient lie for the nuclear and oil and gas corporations.

Florizone’s UDP Report advocated the establishment of a Canadian Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan.  Its mandate would be precisely the same as the UDP Report recommended for industry:

  • Research to develop “small” nuclear reactors
  • Research on high level radioactive waste disposal in the province
  • Exploration, mining and processing of uranium.

Talk about lies of omission:  Florizone did not disclose that the Nuclear Studies Centre was ALREADY up and running when his presentations for the “Public Consultations” were being held.  Vice-President of Research, Karen Chad, made it clear in the On-Campus News of July 2009.  The Vice-President of Finance’s (Florizone’s)  video-taped presentation for the Saskatchewan public, shown to about 2,000 people who attended the public meetings and on-line, contained misleading and half-truths.  Person-after-person pointed it out during the consultation process. It’s all in the public record.

The Vice-Presidents of the University should be role models of integrity.  It is what we expect of our students.

The people of Saskatchewan built the University over the last hundred years. We are the owners. The owners are losing their investment, or stated another way, it is being stolen from them.  They can let it happen or they can stand up and speak out.  Richard Florizone’s behavior clearly falls outside accepted norms.

We citizens are footing the bill for the Conditioning Centres for the nuke and tar sands industries, through the:

–   Canadian Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan and the

–   Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC) at the University of Regina.

This is in direct opposition to expressed wishes.  The public made a clear statement through the Perrins’ Report last September that we do not want nuclear, nor do we want public investment in the obsolete and depleting oil and gas resource.  The global economy is dependent upon cheap oil and gas which is rapidly depleting.  It needs to be conserved, not ever more rapidly exploited as though there is no tomorrow.

Which takes me to the College of Commerce now known as the Edwards School of Business.

Before Dean Grant Isaacs went to a million-dollar job as Senior Vice-President at Cameco I had a 45-minute talk with him.  Earlier I had tried to bring together a group of economists from the University.

There is a pressing need to change our economic indicators.  We allow corporations to transfer the environmental (health) costs of their operations for the public purse to pay.  We do not account for resource depletion in our measure of progress, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  The College of Commerce, the Agricultural Economists, the Economists in the College of Arts all become nothing more than a Conditioning Centre for the corporations.  They are not aggressively attacking the very serious problem of economic measurements that do not provide the feedback we need in order to make intelligent decisions.  These false indicators allow us to blissfully destroy the things we are dependent upon for life.  They tell us we are making “progress”, which is anything but the truth.

When I make a statement such as:  “In spite of the Perrins’ Report (the report on the public consultations that said “no” to nuclear”)  the nuclear ship has set sail at the University.” I am saying that this is not a democracy.  The University spits in the face of the democratically-expressed public will.  We have a corporatocracy.

The Brave New Academy serves to undermine democracy.  That is a serious act of treason.

I mentioned earlier that the corporate drive is to appropriate resources, to own them.  So they can sell them and make profits. The University is a critical resource, especially in a so-called “knowledge economy”.  A society is dependent upon the integrity of its knowledge base.  It is requisite for sound decision-making to address the problems that confront us.

When you appropriate what is not yours, people get angry.  I am angry that the University is being taken from the people of Saskatchewan, with the complicity of people who gain financially from a University that is run according to a corporate model.

Universities have traditionally been a means by which a population could equip itself to function and govern democratically.

The oil and gas (tar sands) people, the nuclear industry, and the politicians need the money to flow to the Universities in Saskatchewan.  It makes it look as though the Government is not funding and is not taking a position that will get them booted out of power. The Universities are the discrete pimps for the industries.   It’s an end-run around the public interest.

John Ralston Saul addressed the Rotarians.  During the question period I asked the question that has irritated me for some time:
The so-called “influential” people in this province have some University background, for the most part.  They have been “educated” or at least “credentialed” at significant public expense at various universities.  They owe something back to the community.  Why is it that when we need, JUST ONE EXAMPLE, a toxicologist, or a medical doctor, or an official from the Health Region to address City Council about links between cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, developmental problems in children and chemicals it is extremely rare that we can find even one so-called “professional” who will speak up?  I don’t get it.  They are the best people to know and yet they won’t speak up.  Why is that?”.

Can you guess the answer supplied by John Ralston Saul?

He said it was an issue of respectability.  My interpretation of what he said:  these people have worked to gain their position in the society.  They have arrived, so to speak.   “Respectable” people don’t rock the boat.  The University turns out “respectable” people.  They’ve gone through the Conditioning Centre for the corporate assembly line.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

10.  NOTICE OF MEETING CONTAINS BIOGRAPHY OF FLORIZONE

Johnson-Shoyama Public Lecture:

“Developing A Provincial Nuclear Strategy”  with Richard Florizone,  Vice-President (Finance and Resources), University of Saskatchewan

Thursday, June 18, 2009  . . .  UNIVERSITY OF REGINA

Richard Florizone was the chairman of the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP), a body assembled by government to evaluate and make recommendations on Saskatchewan-based, value added opportunities in the uranium industry. The Partnership included 12 members representing the two universities, urban and rural municipalities, business, labour, First Nations, the environmental community and Canada’s nuclear industry.

In this seminar, Richard will review the findings of the UDP with respect to the role that Saskatchewan will play across the uranium value chain. More importantly, Richard will review the analysis that has produced key lessons for policy makers.

Richard Florizone is the Vice-President of Finance and Resources at the University of Saskatchewan. Richard is a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan in Engineering and Physics and holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His previous work experience includes positions as a Director of Strategy for Bombardier Aerospace, Consultant and Project Leader for The Boston Consulting Group, and Senior Corporate Liaison Officer and Fundraising Consultant for Cambridge University. Richard has extensive experience in developing and implementing business strategies for major corporations in Canada, the U.S. and Europe. Richard is also the chairman of the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP), a body assembled by government to evaluate and make recommendations on Saskatchewan-based, value added opportunities in the uranium industry.

With campuses at the University of Regina and the University of Saskatchewan, the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School (JSGS) is an interdisciplinary centre for public policy research, teaching, outreach and training.

REGISTRATION    . . .

2011-10-24 Florida Power bills will rise to pay for nuclear projects

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Nuclear  No Responses »
Feb 132012
 

By  Mary Ellen Klas

Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau, Florida

Power & Light got the go-ahead Monday to increase the charge on consumers’ household electric bills that will go towards investing in nuclear energy — even if the utility never ends up building any new nuclear power plants.

The charge, which will amount to $2.20 every month for a household using the average 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a month, was approved unanimously by the Public Service Commission, which regulates state utilities.

Under a state law approved by the Legislature in 2006, the company can collect the money for new nuclear plants without having to commit to building the plants.  The commission approved the increase, arguing it was required to do so based on the statute.

“I find that the utility has done what the statute has asked for,’’ Commissioner Ron Brise said. He said it could hurt investment in the state if the PSC had decided not to give the utility what it expects. “We are implementing the statute as prescribed by the Legislature.”

The average FPL household already pays 33 cents per month for investments in nuclear energy. The new $2.20 charge would replace the current amount. FPL will be able to collect the money for one year, but can return to the PSC to ask for similar charges in future years.  The change will be reflected on customer bills beginning in January, when FPL is expected to seek a larger rate increase for all electricity production to collect up to an additional $1 billion a year.

The five-member commission accepted the arguments of FPL, which asked for $196 million in 2012 for cost recovery — $171 million for upgrading existing nuclear plants and the rest for planning two new reactors at Turkey Point.

FPL says its customers will benefit from the improvements because expanded nuclear power will offset the need to buy natural gas and other fuels. The utility said it plans to have its upgrades completed by 2013 and predicts customers will save $141 million in fuel costs the first year.  It says that when it completes all its nuclear projects, the company will cut greenhouse-gas emissions by an estimated 33 million tons over the plants’ lifetime.

“Our customers get good value for their money, and the reason we’re able to deliver this is because we’ve made long-term, cost-effective investments such as our nuclear projects for years,’’ said FPL spokesman Mark Bubriski.  The nuclear cost recovery policy helps customers “experience real benefits today and have the clean, affordable power they need in the future.’’

But opponents, including the Office of Public Counsel, which represents consumers in the case, argued that the money is a bad deal for consumers because there is no guarantee that FPL will build the new plants despite spending money on planning, licensing and design. Green energy advocates also warn that the process locks customers into paying for expensive nuclear plants for decades when other, more efficient energy options may become available.

“It’s a sad day for Florida ratepayers’ wallets,’’ said Stephen A. Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, a nonprofit advocacy group.  He said the law that allows companies to recover money for nuclear expenses before they incur the costs is “like free money for the utilities.’’

The 2006 law was approved as part of a larger energy-reform package that created a state energy commission, offered solar energy rebates and required the PSC to pass incentives to encourage renewable energy development in Florida.  All of those provisions have since been either revised or dismantled by the Legislature, but the nuclear-cost provision, for which the utility industry lobbied heavily, remains.

Smith said the formula has been a successful one for the utilities, which for the past three years have been able to raise charges to pay for nuclear power planning.  “Talk up a project, sell the idea to the Legislature and PSC, delay it multiple times, and keep vacuuming up ratepayers’ hard-earned dollars,” he said.

The commission also unanimously approved Progress Energy’s request to charge average customers $2.93 per month to build future nuclear power plants, despite troubles with its existing Crystal River plant, which is in need of an estimated $2.5 billion in repairs.

Commissioner Julie Brown asked if the state law specifically requires a company to prove that it intends to build a plant.  Staff lawyer Keino Young said the answer is yes, but noted that the company doesn’t have to definitely decide to build a nuclear plant in order to charge customers and collect money for it.

“Is it necessary that the final decision be made prior to allowing recovery?  No,” Young said. If the company is engaged in siting, licensing or construction of a nuclear power plant, “they meet the intent requirement of your order.”

Commissioner Eduardo Balbis said he is comfortable with allowing the companies to charge customers so they can pursue the option of building a nuclear plant.  He said he didn’t want to reverse the practice of the PSC for the past two years because “making an irrevocable decision at this time of a project of this magnitude may not be reasonable.’’

The PSC, whose members are appointed by the governor, makes its decision based on input from the utilities, from the state’s consumer advocate and from the PSC professional staff, now led by Braulio Baez of Miami, a former PSC commissioner who has worked as a lawyer for the last five years, often representing utility companies.

Meanwhile, the cities of Pinecrest and South Miami are leading an effort to repeal the legislation and have passed resolutions opposing the nuclear cost recovery policy.

“This is in fact the most amazing corporate welfare scheme I have ever seen in my lifetime. It’s really anti-capitalism,’’ said South Miami Mayor Phillip Stoddard.  Because the cost-recovery funding makes it possible for utility companies to obtain Wall Street funding for nuclear technology in the wake of the Japanese disaster, he said, the policy has helped utility shareholders at the cost of consumers.

“Here, the users pay upfront, make the investment and yet somehow the shareholders end up getting the profits,” Stoddard said. “It’s really remarkable.”

Mary Ellen Klas can be reached at meklas  *AT*  MiamiHerald.com and on Twitter @MaryEllenKlas

2012-02-13 Ag-chemical-biotech corp guilty of chemical poisoning in France (Reuters)

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Health  No Responses »
Feb 132012
 

Another important win, and an historical one,  in the fight to protect health from the poisoning.

The Reuters report is followed by a BBC update,  Monsanto is planning to appeal the verdict.

Note that farmers in France “set up an association to make a case that their health problems should be linked to their use of crop products”.

Related articles are in the “Genetically Modified” category in the right-hand sidebar.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/france-pesticides-monsanto-idUSL5E8DD5UG20120213

* Case against Monsanto 1st such claim to reach French court

* Pesticide makers see no evidence of major health risk

By Marion Douet

PARIS, Feb 13 (Reuters) – A French court on Monday declared U.S. biotech giant Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning of a French farmer, a judgment that could lend weight to other health claims against pesticides.

In the first such case heard in court in France, grain grower Paul Francois says he suffered neurological problems including memory loss, headaches and stammering after inhaling Monsanto’s Lasso weedkiller in 2004.

He blames the agri-business giant for not providing adequate warnings on the product label.

The ruling was given by a court in Lyon, southeast France, which ordered an expert opinion of Francois’s losses to establish the sum of damages.

Lawyers for Monsanto could not immediately be reached for comment.

Previous health claims from farmers have foundered because of the difficulty of establishing clear links between illnesses and exposure to pesticides.

“I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of this,” Francois, 47, told Reuters.

He and other farmers suffering from illness set up an association last year to make a case that their health problems should be linked to their use of crop protection products.

The agricultural branch of the French social security system says that since 1996, it has gathered farmers’ reports of sickness potentially related to pesticides, with about 200 alerts a year.

But only about 47 cases have been recognised as due to pesticides in the past 10 years. Francois, who suffers from neurological problems, obtained work invalidity status only after a court appeal.

LESS INTENSIVE NOW

The Francois case goes back to a period of intensive use of crop-protection chemicals in the European Union. The EU and its member countries have since banned a large number of substances considered dangerous.

Monsanto’s Lasso was banned in France in 2007 following an EU directive after the product had already been withdrawn in some other countries.

France, the EU’s largest agricultural producer, is now targetting a 50 percent reduction in pesticide use between 2008 and 2018, with initial results showing a 4 percent cut in farm and non-farm use in 2008-2010.

The Francois claim may be easier to argue than others because he can pinpoint a specific incident – inhaling the Lasso when cleaning the tank of his crop sprayer – whereas fellow farmers are trying to show accumulated effects from various products.

“It’s like lying on a bed of thorns and trying to say which one cut you,” said a farmer, who has recovered from prostate cancer and asked not to be named.

The French association of crop protection companies, UIPP, says pesticides are all subject to testing and that any evidence of a cancer risk in humans leads to withdrawal of products from the market.

“I think if we had a major health problem with pesticides, we would have already known about it,” Jean-Charles Bocquet, UIPP’s managing director, said.

The social security’s farming branch this year is due to add Parkinson’s disease to its list of conditions related to pesticide use after already recognising some cases of blood cancers and bladder and respiratory problems.

France’s health and environment safety agency (ANSES), meanwhile, is conducting a study on farmers’ health, with results expected next year.

= = = = = == = = = == = == =

QUESTION:  What is `Lasso`used for ?  …

From  http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/household/brands?tbl=brands&id=13019020

it is a herbicide used for grass and weed control.

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17024494

US firm Monsanto ‘guilty’ in France poisoning case

French farmer Paul Francois who sued Monsanto - 20 Apr 10 Mr Francois runs a campaign group to fight for compensation

A French court has found the US biotech giant Monsanto legally responsible for the poisoning of a farmer who inhaled a powerful weedkiller.

Correspondents say the case could influence rulings in other countries on the use of pesticides.

Monsanto says it will appeal against Monday’s verdict by a court in Lyon.

Paul Francois, 47, suffered from dizziness, headaches and other problems after examining a sprayer in 2004 which contained Lasso, a product now
banned.

The court linked Lasso directly to the farmer’s illness.  It ordered a report on his condition, to establish the amount of compensation
Monsanto would have to pay him.

‘Historic decision’

Mr Francois, a cereal farmer from the Charente region in south-west France, had to stop work for a year. Medical tests found the hazardous chemical chlorobenzene in his body.

He complained that Monsanto had failed to give a warning on the Lasso label.

His lawyer, Francois Lafforgue, told Reuters news agency this was “a historic decision, in so far as it is the first time that a [pesticide] maker is found guilty of such a poisoning”.

Lasso has been banned in France since 2007. It was also withdrawn from sale earlier in Belgium, Canada, the UK and some other countries, French TF1 television reports.

Yann Fichet, head of institutional relations at Monsanto France, said: “We are disappointed by the court’s decision.”

Monsanto’s lawyer, Jean-Philippe Delsart, said: “Monsanto always considered that there were not sufficient elements to establish a causal relationship between Paul Francois’s symptoms and a potential poisoning.”

Correspondents say similar legal complaints often fail to prove a direct causal link between pesticide use and human illnesses.

2012-02-12 Bill Clears Path For 30,000 Surveillance Drones Over US In Next Ten Years

 Drones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles / UAVs)  No Responses »
Feb 092012
 

Bill Clears Path For 30,000 Surveillance Drones Over US In Next Ten Years

Critics warn military industrial complex pushing US “willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance”

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
February 8, 2012

Bill Clears Path For 30,000 Surveillance Drones Over US In Next Ten Years 050926f0000r001

A bill passed in by Congress this week paves the way for the use of surveillance drones in US skies. The FAA predicts that by 2020 there could be up to 30,000 drones in operation.

Once signed by president Obama, the FAA Reauthorization Act allows for the FAA to permit the use of drones and develop regulations for testing and licensing by 2015.

The bill will exponentially speed up and streamline the process by which the FAA authorizes the use of drones by federal, state and local police and other government agencies. Currently, the FAA issues a certificate on a case by case basis.

The legislation represents the result of a huge push by the military industrial complex to open up US skies to what will become a multi-million dollar business.

The American Civil Liberties Union warned Monday that the legislation could severely undermine Americans’ privacy.

“Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft,” Jay Stanley of the ACLU said. “This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected.”

    2011-12-20 Articles on mercury, related to its use in nuclear weapons plant

     Mercury poisoning, dental amalgams. See also Vaccinations., Nuclear, Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
    Feb 032012
     
    Mercury’s health effects on workers, Oak Ridge public still under scrutiny. Wayne Wallace, his kidneys destroyed by mercury exposures at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, died in 1977. He was 51 years old. Knoxville News Sentinel, Tennessee.
    Fingerprinting mercury emissions. Researchers have begun to track mercury emissions from individual coal-fired power plants to determine where, and in what form, these airborne contaminants settle. Environment Report http://www.environmentreport.org/show.php?showID=596

    2012-02-01 Census Lockheed Martin: Judgment. Court of Queen’s Bench, Sandra Finley v The Queen. Judge Konkin. Appeal dismissed.

     Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys  No Responses »
    Feb 012012
     

    RE:  My trial over non-compliance with the 2006 census (because part of the census work is out-sourced to Lockheed Martin Corporation).  I received summons to court in March 2008.

    Provincial Court Judge Sheila Whelan eventually found me guilty but gave an absolute discharge.   The guilty decision was appealed to Court of Queen’s Bench.

    Mr. Justice Konkin dismissed the appeal.  His decision is at  doc020612_00000001_20120206_143612652

    Lawyer Steve writes: “We do have grounds for an appeal, as I believe Justice Konkin’s decision is based on the faulty logic that information that you haven’t written down on the census form cannot be protected under the Charter.”

    Judge Konkin’s decision is now under appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

    It is expected that the appeal may be held in July 2012.

    The Appeal will be heard on Monday November 5, 2012, 10:00 am in Regina.

     

     

    2012-01-29 How Doctors Die. It’s Not Like the Rest of Us, But It Should Be.

     Empowerment, Health  No Responses »
    Jan 292012
     

    Janet writes:  everyone I’ve sent this to is so happy to have rec’d it & keep telling me EVERYone needs to see it….

    http://zocalopublicsquare.org/thepublicsquare/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die/read/nexus/

    (Note:  the text is below.  But you may want to read from the URL.   In the “Comments”, dated Feb 1,  there is information on the Voluntarily Stopping Eating and Drinking (VSED) process.   It is the route chosen by a retired, elderly neurologist from Montreal, the father of a friend.  It was a remarkable and healthy story;  I didn’t know there is a named process.)

    by Ken Murray

    Years ago, Charlie, a highly respected orthopedist and a mentor of mine, found a lump in his stomach. He had a surgeon explore the area, and the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer. This surgeon was one of the best in the country. He had even invented a new procedure for this exact cancer that could triple a patient’s five-year-survival odds—from 5 percent to 15 percent—albeit with a poor quality of life. Charlie was uninterested. He went home the next day, closed his practice, and never set foot in a hospital again. He focused on spending time with family and feeling as good as possible. Several months later, he died at home. He got no chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical treatment. Medicare didn’t spend much on him.

    It’s not a frequent topic of discussion, but doctors die, too. And they don’t die like the rest of us. What’s unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared to most Americans, but how little. For all the time they spend fending off the deaths of others, they tend to be fairly serene when faced with death themselves. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care they could want. But they go gently.

    Of course, doctors don’t want to die; they want to live. But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits. And they know enough about death to know what all people fear most: dying in pain, and dying alone. They’ve talked about this with their families. They want to be sure, when the time comes, that no heroic measures will happen—that they will never experience, during their last moments on earth, someone breaking their ribs in an attempt to resuscitate them with CPR (that’s what happens if CPR is done right).

    Almost all medical professionals have seen what we call “futile care” being performed on people. That’s when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life. The patient will get cut open, perforated with tubes, hooked up to machines, and assaulted with drugs. All of this occurs in the Intensive Care Unit at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a day. What it buys is misery we would not inflict on a terrorist. I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me, in words that vary only slightly, “Promise me if you find me like this that you’ll kill me.” They mean it. Some medical personnel wear medallions stamped “NO CODE” to tell physicians not to perform CPR on them. I have even seen it as a tattoo.

    To administer medical care that makes people suffer is anguishing. Physicians are trained to gather information without revealing any of their own feelings, but in private, among fellow doctors, they’ll vent. “How can anyone do that to their family members?” they’ll ask. I suspect it’s one reason physicians have higher rates of alcohol abuse and depression than professionals in most other fields. I know it’s one reason I stopped participating in hospital care for the last 10 years of my practice.

    How has it come to this—that doctors administer so much care that they wouldn’t want for themselves? The simple, or not-so-simple, answer is this: patients, doctors, and the system.

    To see how patients play a role, imagine a scenario in which someone has lost consciousness and been admitted to an emergency room. As is so often the case, no one has made a plan for this situation, and shocked and scared family members find themselves caught up in a maze of choices. They’re overwhelmed. When doctors ask if they want “everything” done, they answer yes. Then the nightmare begins. Sometimes, a family really means “do everything,” but often they just mean “do everything that’s reasonable.” The problem is that they may not know what’s reasonable, nor, in their confusion and sorrow, will they ask about it or hear what a physician may be telling them. For their part, doctors told to do “everything” will do it, whether it is reasonable or not.

    The above scenario is a common one. Feeding into the problem are unrealistic expectations of what doctors can accomplish. Many people think of CPR as a reliable lifesaver when, in fact, the results are usually poor. I’ve had hundreds of people brought to me in the emergency room after getting CPR. Exactly one, a healthy man who’d had no heart troubles (for those who want specifics, he had a “tension pneumothorax”), walked out of the hospital. If a patient suffers from severe illness, old age, or a terminal disease, the odds of a good outcome from CPR are infinitesimal, while the odds of suffering are overwhelming. Poor knowledge and misguided expectations lead to a lot of bad decisions.

    But of course it’s not just patients making these things happen. Doctors play an enabling role, too. The trouble is that even doctors who hate to administer futile care must find a way to address the wishes of patients and families. Imagine, once again, the emergency room with those grieving, possibly hysterical, family members. They do not know the doctor. Establishing trust and confidence under such circumstances is a very delicate thing. People are prepared to think the doctor is acting out of base motives, trying to save time, or money, or effort, especially if the doctor is advising against further treatment.

    Some doctors are stronger communicators than others, and some doctors are more adamant, but the pressures they all face are similar. When I faced circumstances involving end-of-life choices, I adopted the approach of laying out only the options that I thought were reasonable (as I would in any situation) as early in the process as possible. When patients or families brought up unreasonable choices, I would discuss the issue in layman’s terms that portrayed the downsides clearly. If patients or families still insisted on treatments I considered pointless or harmful, I would offer to transfer their care to another doctor or hospital.

    Should I have been more forceful at times? I know that some of those transfers still haunt me. One of the patients of whom I was most fond was an attorney from a famous political family. She had severe diabetes and terrible circulation, and, at one point, she developed a painful sore on her foot. Knowing the hazards of hospitals, I did everything I could to keep her from resorting to surgery. Still, she sought out outside experts with whom I had no relationship. Not knowing as much about her as I did, they decided to perform bypass surgery on her chronically clogged blood vessels in both legs. This didn’t restore her circulation, and the surgical wounds wouldn’t heal. Her feet became gangrenous, and she endured bilateral leg amputations. Two weeks later, in the famous medical center in which all this had occurred, she died.

    It’s easy to find fault with both doctors and patients in such stories, but in many ways all the parties are simply victims of a larger system that encourages excessive treatment. In some unfortunate cases, doctors use the fee-for-service model to do everything they can, no matter how pointless, to make money. More commonly, though, doctors are fearful of litigation and do whatever they’re asked, with little feedback, to avoid getting in trouble.

    Even when the right preparations have been made, the system can still swallow people up. One of my patients was a man named Jack, a 78-year-old who had been ill for years and undergone about 15 major surgical procedures. He explained to me that he never, under any circumstances, wanted to be placed on life support machines again. One Saturday, however, Jack suffered a massive stroke and got admitted to the emergency room unconscious, without his wife. Doctors did everything possible to resuscitate him and put him on life support in the ICU. This was Jack’s worst nightmare. When I arrived at the hospital and took over Jack’s care, I spoke to his wife and to hospital staff, bringing in my office notes with his care preferences. Then I turned off the life support machines and sat with him. He died two hours later.

    Even with all his wishes documented, Jack hadn’t died as he’d hoped. The system had intervened. One of the nurses, I later found out, even reported my unplugging of Jack to the authorities as a possible homicide. Nothing came of it, of course; Jack’s wishes had been spelled out explicitly, and he’d left the paperwork to prove it. But the prospect of a police investigation is terrifying for any physician. I could far more easily have left Jack on life support against his stated wishes, prolonging his life, and his suffering, a few more weeks. I would even have made a little more money, and Medicare would have ended up with an additional $500,000 bill. It’s no wonder many doctors err on the side of overtreatment.

    But doctors still don’t over-treat themselves. They see the consequences of this constantly. Almost anyone can find a way to die in peace at home, and pain can be managed better than ever. Hospice care, which focuses on providing terminally ill patients with comfort and dignity rather than on futile cures, provides most people with much better final days. Amazingly, studies have found that people placed in hospice care often live longer than people with the same disease who are seeking active cures. I was struck to hear on the radio recently that the famous reporter Tom Wicker had “died peacefully at home, surrounded by his family.” Such stories are, thankfully, increasingly common.

    Several years ago, my older cousin Torch (born at home by the light of a flashlight—or torch) had a seizure that turned out to be the result of lung cancer that had gone to his brain. I arranged for him to see various specialists, and we learned that with aggressive treatment of his condition, including three to five hospital visits a week for chemotherapy, he would live perhaps four months. Ultimately, Torch decided against any treatment and simply took pills for brain swelling. He moved in with me.

    We spent the next eight months doing a bunch of things that he enjoyed, having fun together like we hadn’t had in decades. We went to Disneyland, his first time. We’d hang out at home. Torch was a sports nut, and he was very happy to watch sports and eat my cooking. He even gained a bit of weight, eating his favorite foods rather than hospital foods. He had no serious pain, and he remained high-spirited. One day, he didn’t wake up. He spent the next three days in a coma-like sleep and then died. The cost of his medical care for those eight months, for the one drug he was taking, was about $20.

    Torch was no doctor, but he knew he wanted a life of quality, not just quantity. Don’t most of us? If there is a state of the art of end-of-life care, it is this: death with dignity. As for me, my physician has my choices. They were easy to make, as they are for most physicians. There will be no heroics, and I will go gentle into that good night. Like my mentor Charlie. Like my cousin Torch. Like my fellow doctors.

    Ken Murray, MD, is Clinical Assistant Professor of Family Medicine at USC.

    4. Ballantyne CQB Decision

     X Ballantyne  No Responses »
    Jan 172012
     

    2012-01-17  Judge Popescul’s decision:

    Vellacott v Laliberte, 2012 SKQB 23 (CanLII) — 2012-01-17

    Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan — Saskatchewan
    defamation — punitive damages — televised call-in program — reputation — broadcast
    cited by 1 case
    = = = = = = =  = =

    (The easiest access to the documents is at the above CanLii URL.  Scanned copy is on this blog:

    Popescul 1-4

    Popescul 5-7

    Popescul 8-12 

    Popescul 13-16 )

     

     

     

     

    3. Ballantyne Summary & Time-Line

     X Ballantyne  No Responses »
    Jan 152012
     

    Laliberte: SUMMARY  AND TIME-LINE

     

    • George Laliberte seeks redress:   He was not informed of trial in which he was the defendant (involves McKercher Law Firm, the Liberal Party of Canada and Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott).

     

    • January 17, 2012  Justice Popescul, Court of Queen’s Bench, Saskatoon Docket QBG No. 387 of 2006, Citation 2012 SKQB 23 finds that George Laliberte made defamatory statements about Maurice Vellacott.  Vellacott is awarded $5000 to be paid by Laliberte.

    Laliberte did not know that he was on trial.   He finds out because reporters phone him to discover his reaction to the Court award.

    • George Laliberte commences action to cause McKercher Law Firm and the Liberals to be held responsible and accountable for their actions.  In February 2012 lawyer Jack Hillson, acting on behalf of Laliberte went to the Court House to obtain Court documents.  Hillson talks with Hesje and withdraws from representing Laliberte because of conflict-of-interest, Liberal Party.

     

    • Feb 28, Laliberte files his own complaint against McKercher with the Law Society.

     

    • March 27, the Law Society forwards the file to the Designate Complaints Officer, John McIntosh QC, Swift Current.

     

    • August 28, the Law Society sent George the decision of the Complaints Officer:   Page 9,

    CONCLUSION:

    It is almost impossible to believe that in Canada a matter could proceed to the highest Court levels and even to Judgment, without the knowledge of the defendant. If Laliberte’s allegations are true, as I conclude that they are, his case presents a frightening reality.  It would mean that, in effect, Laliberte was denied the opportunity of defending himself. Even if the outcome were to be the same in any event, there is the principle of allowing an individual a fair hearing, which has merit of its own.   . . .

    • October   Karen Prisciak QC is hired by the Law Society to deal with the complaint.

     

    •  May 13, 2013.   The Law Society issues formal charges against Froese and Hesje.
     Older Entries  Newer Entries