Sandra Finley

2010-01-20 Mercury: Excellent Video “Poison in the Mouth”. Includes Dr. Lars Friberg.

 Mercury poisoning, dental amalgams. See also Vaccinations.  No Responses »
Jan 042010
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeanAuZK_DY&feature=player_embedded    (11 minutes)

“Poison in the Mouth”   Includes how mercury is treated after it has been removed from the mouth (with hazardous material “haz mat” handling procedures).

Includes

  • Dr. Lars Friberg (WHO)
  • the work of researchers at the University of Calgary (the sheep and monkey research) Dr. Murray Vimy and Dr. Fritz Lorscheider ; the research from U of Southern California (Dr. David Eggleston) regarding accumulation of mercury from amalgams in the brain;  and Kentucky researcher Boyd Haley on Alzheimer’s connection.  Mercury crossing the placenta. Etc.

Millions of people have dental amalgam silver fillings implanted in their teeth. Dental amalgam is the most commonly used material to repair cavities. Amalgams are a mixture of the toxic metals mercury, zinc, tin and copper. Amalgam fillings contain 50% mercury and only 20 to 35% silver. Mercury is highly toxic and causes many health problems!

http://relfe.com/mercury.html

Mercury vapor escapes from amalgam fillings, is inhaled and swallowed. This causes low level mercury poisoning in the body. The amount of mercury in the brain is directly linked to the number and the size of amalgam fillings. Mercury passes through the placental barrier and even enters the mother’s breast milk! Mercury affects the body chemistry and disrupts organs.
(Link no longer valid)   http://wholebodymed.com/thescience.php

Symptoms of mercury poisoning include:
Auto-immune diseases, mental disorders, migraines, cancer, insomnia, arthritis, depression, oral lesions, infertility, birth defects, stomach pains, memory loss, autism, developmental disorders, ADHD, anxiety, mood changes, asthma, allergies, etc.
http://buzzle.com/articles/mercury-poisoning-symptoms.html

More videos about Dental Amalgam:
http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A84DA680BF7AD42A
http://mercuryundercover.com

Dental amalgams were first introduced in 1833 but many dentists refused to implant them due to the mercury. In 1843, the American Society of Dental Surgeons declared the use of dental amalgam a malpractice(!) and forced its members to abstain from using amalgams.

Proponents of amalgam continued to claim that dental amalgam was safe because it was supposedly inert in the filling. Since dental amalgam was less expensive and easier to work with than gold fillings, it wasn’t long before dental amalgam was routinely used by most dentists.

In 1926, Dr. Alfred Stock showed that mercury vapor escapes from amalgam fillings and that this could cause significant health damage. The American Dental Association (ADA) vigorously defended dental amalgams its widespread use was continued.

In 1986, the ADA finally admitted that mercury vapor escapes from the amalgam fillings but remained adamant that amalgams were safe, and in 1986 it changed its code of ethics, making it unethical for dentists to inform patients of the health risks of amalgams or to recommend removal of amalgams…
(Link no longer valid)   http://wholebodymed.com/historypolit.php
(Link no longer valid)   http://wholisticresearch.com/info/artshow.php3?artid=20

In 2008 the FDA admitted that dental amalgam can cause health problems.

Norway, Denmark and Sweden have ended use of mercury fillings and many dental schools no longer teach mercury placement. Germany, Canada, and California require mercury toxicity warnings to be given to pregnant women.

There are healthier alternatives to dental amalgam such as composite resin (white) fillings, porcelain, and glass ionomers but make sure they don’t contain added fluoride! Gold is not a healthy alternative as it will produce electrical currents within your mouth.

Improve your health by having your amalgam fillings removed!
http://hugginsappliedhealing.com/testimonials.php

Amalgam removal should be done SAFELY! Use a dentist who specializes in safe amalgam removal. Mercury vapor escapes during the removal process.
It is essential that you are protected!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MgIUrj7s3PA
http://sarkissiandds.com/articles/1001.html
(Link no longer valid)  http://evenbetternow.com/proddetail.asp?prod=Mercury-Amalgam-Pak

Safely remove mercury and other metals from your body with Zeolite, a 100% natural mineral.
(Link no longer valid)   http://hank.etszeolite.com/index2.html
http://zeoliteinfo.com/home.html

Don’t use a dentist who still implants amalgam fillings in other patients as this causes second hand mercury vapor.

Mercury-free & mercury-safe dentists:
http://dentalwellness4u.com/freeservices/find_dentists.html

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
Hosea 4:6 (KJV)

More information:
http://mercuryfreenow.com
http://mercuryundercover.com
http://dentalwellness4u.com
http://hugginsappliedhealing.com
http://naturaldentistry.us
http://drpgilbert.com/amalgam-poisoning.html
(Link no longer valid)   http://y2khealthanddetox.com/mercfillings.html
http://alternativesmagazine.com/41/rubin.html
http://talkinternational.com
http://autism.com/ari/dental.htm
http://donaldrobbinsdmd.com
http://toxicteeth.org
http://yourhealthbase.com/amalgams.html
http://healingcancernaturally.com/toxic-root-canals-amalgam-etc.html
http://dentalmercuryvictims.blogspot.com
http://curezone.com/dental
http://iaomt.org

2010-01-04 People speaking out. Bill Moyers interview re Wall Street.

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials), Resource depletion (water in USA)  No Responses »
Jan 042010
 

(Note to myself:  find the email that is referred to.  Definition of corporatocracy.)

Item #1 below:  a very good interview that speaks beyond what is wrong (and how to make it right) in the U.S. systems of governance and economics (Wall Street).

AND THEN (item #2)  an email: I thought I should tell Bill Moyers, Simon Johnson and Marcy Kaptur of the situation here.

ONE PART of what’s happening here is that Stephen Harper is proroguing Parliament.  It will kill important legislation in progress, shut down the embarrassment over the Afghanistan War, among other things.

You will be sick of hearing me say:  it is necessary to consider things IN CONTEXT.  The context is partially spelt out in the email to Moyers, Johnson and Kaptur (ITEM #2).   We are on very shaky ground.

Strategically, to regain ground after a major set-back (proroguation in this case), I:

  • focus on creating at least one new alliance (the letter to Moyers will tell you who that is).
  • make a point of finding 10 new people to add to my part of our network.
  • know that some others of you will do the same in your part of the network!

I believe that our best offensive is to simply increase our numbers, increase the number of informed people.  We have email – it’s easy to do.

/Sandra

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

(1) BILL MOYERS’ INTERVIEW 

October 9, 2009

Just over a year after economic calamity brought promises of reform from Washington, has Wall Street really changed? Former International Monetary Fund chief economist Simon Johnson and US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) report on the state of the economy.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10092009/watch.html

To activate:

Click on the link.    Then click on the picture of Bill Moyers in the “tv screen”.   A “start arrow” will appear.   Click on it and the audio/video should start.

= = = = = = = =  ==  = = = = =

(2)      EMAIL TO BILL MOYERS

SENT:  Sun 03/01/2010 5:39 PM

Dear Bill Moyers, Simon Johnson and Marcy Kaptur,

I’ve forwarded the link to your PBS interview from October 9th into some email networks in Canada.  The information is sent and re-sent.

You discussed the takeover by Wall Street.  In general it is a takeover of Canada as well as the U.S. and other parts of the world.  There are many quislings in Canada.

I increasingly use the word “corporatocracy” to explain our system of governance.  And the need for citizens to become involved, to drive the change from corporatocracy to a form of governance that reflects our values.

I am concerned about the potential for Canadians to increasingly blame “the Americans” for worsening conditions.  It is easier than getting up off our butts to set things right.  But it is the road to hatred between nations, not a smart path to trod!

I recognize the potential in myself:  “the Americans” becomes shorthand for American leadership.  I know I am not supposed to say this, it might get me into trouble, but I have fantasized about striding into the office of Hugh Grant with a sub-machine gun (Grant is Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of American chemical/biotech Corporation, Monsanto).  I need to remind myself that it is these corporations, not “the Americans”, who are the evil empire.  (But we are all culprits nonetheless: Corporations are merely a construct of our laws.  The laws are of our making and we have the power to change the laws.)

A young American veteran of the Iraq war said it well,  the wars are not between the citizens of our nations, whatever nations those may be (an excellent youtube video – I hope you have a few minutes for it:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8&feature=email ).

It is good when we go overseas and into areas that the media portray as hopeless.  What we find is people who may be poor, but they put their hearts into exactly the same things as do we:  safe, secure communities and education for our children.  We are not different from those people; we are manipulated into believing they are different, as the young veteran explains.

When I was a teenager youth hostelling in Europe in the 1960’s, I learned the value of making my Canadian citizenship known.  Numbers of people despised me if they mistook my accent as American.

Now, Canadians are in the same league as the Americans – I am sometimes hated by people from other countries because Canadian mining companies are ruthless in taking over, poisoning and depleting local water supplies.  Robbery of resources.  Also Canadians have joined the Americans, in the interests of the biotech corporations, in trying to impose unwanted GMO crops and the idea of corporate “ownership” of life forms (seeds) on other nations through trade organizations like the WTO.  Our sins are joined to yours.

I am forever grateful to Prime Minister Jean Chretien:  he kept Canada out of the war in Iraq (at least on the surface).  But now we have Stephen Harper, a clone of George Bush, to collaborate with the Corporate- Big Government machine.  His current abuses of democratic process in the proroguing of Parliament is beyond imagination, unless you are in a corporatocracy or plutocracy or some other form of warped and malignant governance.

In this era of rapidly depleting oil & gas reserves, and water, the American Empire, like the Nazi Empire before it, must appropriate the resources of other people to fuel its expansion and control.  (I am thinking, just one example, of the Nazi’s need to take the iron ore from northern Sweden and to control Norway in order to move the ore across to shipping lanes along the Norwegian coast.  The iron ore resource in Germany was used up; but they could not run their war machine without it.  And so they took over other nations.)

Replace “Nazi” by “American”, “Sweden” by “Canada and “iron ore” by “oil & gas” and “water”.  You have:  The American Empire must appropriate Canadian oil and gas and water in order to fuel its expansion and control.  The deed is almost already accomplished through the American corporate structure; the back-up military integration is in place lest difficulties be encountered.  The bureaucracy here is riddled with people whose role is servitude to the corporate interests.  The strategic puppet political leaders who will profit from collaboration are in place, making the sell-out quite easy.   This is but one more performance of a well-rehearsed play that has taken place in the Congo (American copper interests) – the list is too long and you will know the countries and resources.  Canadians have the illusion that we are somehow different.  While Americans are often kept in the dark about American activities in foreign lands.

In Canada we are seeing the corporate (“Wall Street”) takeover, not only of our Government but also

  • of our Universities (the knowledge base) and
  • the Canadian “Defence” Department (which used to be more aligned with peace offensives).

The “Troop Exchange Agreement” (Feb 2009), the “Canada First Defence Strategy” (June 2009) are about “interoperability” and repugnant alignment with American war policy.  Your military-industrial–congressional complex has almost taken over here, working with the quislings and collaborators.

Canadians are thereby actively involved in the insanity of “unmanned drones” used to drop bombs on other people.  When other nations start to drop bombs from unmanned drones on us, they will be labeled “terrorist”.  And we will be brainwashed through fear into hating them — when we (Americans AND Canadians through our “defence” integration) are the originators of the weaponry.  “The terrorists” will only be mimicking us in self-defence.

The arms manufacturers do not care to whom they sell their weaponry.  You have only to google Lockheed Martin Corporation to see the convictions against them for contravention of American laws that are supposed to prohibit weapon transfer into “the wrong” hands.  French arms manufacturers are no different.  Corporations are without conscience.

The weapons of Gandhi (which are the teachings of your Henry David Thoreau) are so obviously more intelligent and effective.  I wonder at our gross stupidity in allowing and funding these corporations and the destruction they create, through our taxes.

I am on trial next week because I refused to fill in my 2006 Canadian Census form.  I would not, because part of the work on the Canadian census was out-sourced to American arms dealer and war-monger Lockheed Martin Corporation.

Anyone familiar with the history of the draconian use of census data in Nazi Europe (“IBM and the Holocaust” by Edwin Black) would never allow even one tiny footstep of the American military into the arena of government census data on individual Canadians.  The potential for abuse is magnified many times over what happened in Nazi Europe, by today’s technologies.

The situation is exacerbated by the Patriot Act which gives access, without notification to the owners, by the American military to data held by any corporation in the U.S. and its subsidiaries in other countries.  (Why Americans allow Lockheed Martin to do your census indicates to me that you do not appreciate the wisdom of your own legal instruments for the protection of privacy, or of history generally.  It was through the census contracts of IBM’s disguised subsidiaries in various European countries that the Nazis knew who the Jews were and where they lived, well before the Nazis actually entered the countries.)

It is also reprehensible to me that the Canadian government would out-source work to an American corporation that not only is a war profiteer, but also one that manufactures or has manufactured weapons in contravention of Canadian and International Law (land mines and cluster munitions).  In these times, civil disobedience is called for (although in my case it is not really civil disobedience because the Government is the offender, not me).

I am thankful to Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau who entrenched the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the Constitution of Canada.  I expect to be found “not guilty” because my Charter Rights override the Statistics Act under which I am being prosecuted.

Sometimes it seems that we can never overcome the evils.  But in fact we can, because there are so many of us.

Canadians can be motivated and hopeful, just by knowing people in the U.S. such as yourselves are also working very hard to make things right.  We join hands across the border, in defiance of the wrongs committed in our names, enabled by our money (taxes) and by our former inaction.  I believe that the success of Americans is critical to our success in Canada in overcoming the corporate (“Wall Street”) agenda.

We labor alongside you in “the good fight”; we take from you (e.g. Bill Moyers’ PBS programmes, Paul Hawken’s book “Blessed Unrest”,  Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”, etc.).  . . . .

Do you benefit from us?  My guess is that because of the all-pervasiveness of the American media and the insulation that accompanies “Empire”, that people in America may not be too aware of the contributions that Canadians make to the overall fight.  Which is okay – – I just want to ensure that we work together and that Canadians do not come to see “Americans” as “the enemy” that is responsible for creation of the havoc, and that people overseas do not come to see “Canadians” as the enemy – – – –  which we are if we do not assume responsibility for our Governments.

I am reminded of Canadian Buffy St Marie’s “Universal Soldier”, also highly recommended if you have a few minutes.

(Lyrics and link to Buffy’s youtube :  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5230 )

I wish to thank you, Bill, for the excellence and useability of your work.   I periodically circulate it.  One of the first pieces I used was your exposure of the chemical corporations.

My congratulations to the three of you for your efforts.  We are all empowered by them.

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

Saskatoon  SK Canada  S7N 0L1

(I am from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan in Canada.  I’ve run an activist email network for 10 years.  And was the leader of the Green Party of Saskatchewan during the last provincial election (2007).  I do not currently have a web-site because of the long-pending trial; I do not wish to supply information to the prosecutors that may in some way be used against me.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

October 9, 2009

Just over a year after economic calamity brought promises of reform from Washington, has Wall Street really changed? Former International Monetary Fund chief economist Simon Johnson and US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) report on the state of the economy.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10092009/watch.html

2010-01-11 Big win for bees, court win on pesticide. Email thread with Canadian regulators.

 Food, Health  No Responses »
Dec 302009
 

UPDATE ON BAYER’S “MOVENTO” AND BEES.  ILLEGAL TO SELL IN THE U.S.  WHAT IS STATUS IN CANADA? 

On Dec 30, 2009 we circulated the U.S. story “Big Win for Bees: Judge Pulls Pesticide”. 

I then sent an email to the Canadian Government to find out the status of Bayer’s chemical “Movento” (spirotetramat) in Canada.  The following is the email thread.  Scroll down to the responses from the Government.

– – – —  – – — — – –

SENT:  Wed 30/12/2009 10:57 AM 

TO: 

Karen Dodds, head of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA, Health Canada) 

(NOTE:  Karen Dodds is now moved up the chain into “Policy”)

Connie Moase, toxicologist at the PMRA

CC:  Carole Swan, head of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA, Agriculture Canada)

Louise Duke, also from the CFIA

Dear Ladies,

Please advise:  what is the status of the pesticide spirotetramat (manufactured by Bayer CropScience under the trade names Movento and Ultor) in Canada?

In case you are not aware of the December court ruling in the U.S. which invalidates the registration of the EPA’s approval of the pesticide spirotetramat (Bayer, trade name Movento) I am drawing it to your attention.  See the appended press release.

As of January 15th it is illegal to sell spirotetramat in the U.S.

Is it legal to sell Movento and Ultor in Canada?  If so, what are your plans regarding this chemical, in light of the situation in the U.S.?

Thank-you for your considered response.

Sincerely,

Sandra Finley   (contact info)

APPENDED

the nastiest chemical known to bees, at least up until “Movento,” the neonicitanoid family, continues to be used with abandon, in North America
Regards, Larry

– – – – – – – – – – –

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:            Josh Mogerman at 312-651-7909

Big Win for Bees: Judge Pulls Pesticide

Bee toxic Movento pulled from market for proper evaluation

NEW YORK (December 29, 2009) – A pesticide that could be dangerously toxic to America’s honey bees must be pulled from store shelves as a result of a suit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Xerces Society. In an order issued last week, a federal court in New York invalidated EPA’s approval of the pesticide spirotetramat (manufactured by Bayer CropScience under the trade names Movento and Ultor) and ordered the agency to reevaluate the chemical in compliance with the law. The court’s order goes into effect on January 15, 2010, and makes future sales of Movento illegal in the United States .

“This sends EPA and Bayer back to the drawing board to reconsider the potential harm to bees caused by this new pesticide,” said NRDC Senior Attorney Aaron Colangelo. “EPA admitted to approving the pesticide illegally, but argued that its violations of the law should have no consequences. The Court disagreed and ordered the pesticide to be taken off the market until it has been properly evaluated. Bayer should not be permitted to run what amounts to an uncontrolled experiment on bees across the country without full consideration of the consequences.”

In June 2008, EPA approved Movento for nationwide use on hundreds of different crops, including apples, pears, peaches, oranges, tomatoes, grapes, strawberries, almonds, and spinach. The approval process went forward without the advance notice and opportunity for public comment that is required by federal law and EPA’s own regulations. In addition, EPA failed to evaluate fully the potential damage to the nation’s already beleaguered bee populations or conduct the required analysis of the pesticide’s economic, environmental, and social costs.

Beekeepers and scientists have expressed concern over Movento’s potential impact on beneficial insects such as honey bees. The pesticide impairs the insect’s ability to reproduce. EPA’s review of Bayer’s scientific studies found that trace residues of Movento brought back to the hive by adult bees could cause “significant mortality” and “massive perturbation” to young honeybees (larvae). 

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), bees pollinate $15 billion worth of crops grown in America . USDA also claims that one out of every three mouthfuls of food in the typical American diet has a connection to bee pollination. Yet bee colonies in the United States have seen significant declines in recent years due to a combination of stressors, almost certainly including insecticide exposure.

“This case underscores the need for us to re-examine how we evaluate the impact of pesticides and other chemicals in the environment,” said Colangelo. “In approving Movento, EPA identified but ignored potentially serious harms to bees and other pollinators. We are in the midst of a pollinator crisis, with more than a third of our colonies disappearing in recent years. Given how important these creatures are to our food supply, we simply cannot look past these sorts of problems.”

The court decision is available at http://docs.nrdc.org/wildlife/wil_09122901.asp

More information on threats to honey bees at www.BeeSafe.org

# # #

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.3 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York , Washington , Chicago , Los Angeles , San Francisco and Beijing .

______________________________

Josh Mogerman

Senior Media Associate

Natural Resources Defense Council

Midwest Program

312-651-7909 – o | 773-531-5359 – m

(Please note that my phone numbers have changed.)

jmogerman  AT  NRDC.org

—–Original Message—–

From: Marion Law [mailto:Marion.Law AT hc-sc.gc.ca]

Sent: January 11, 2010 11:51 AM

To: sabest1 AT sasktel.net

Cc: Maude Louis-Seize; denise_shields AT hc-sc.gc.ca

Subject: Status of Movento in Canada

Dear Sandra Finley,

      Please accept my apologises for the delay in responding to your request of December 30, 2009,  for information on the status of Movento in Canada.

      Movento is currently registed for use in  Canada as an insecticide.

The submission was a global joint  review that involved  Austria , the US and Canada working together on  data studies and information submitted to support the registration of this product. The review determined that the pesticide did not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment and included, as a standard part of the review and based on the information provided, an assessment of the potential impact  of this product on pollinators such as honey bees.  As a registration requirement, the PMRA, called for clear label statements for Movento to ensure the protection of human health and the environment, this included use restrictions to help mitigate any potential effects on pollinators.

      Prior to the the registration, the PMRA solicited public comment on the decision to register. No comments were received as a result of this consultation process.

      The PMRA is aware of the recent court ruling in the US involving Movento and is monitoring the situation closely.

I hope this information is useful and if I can be of further help, please do not hesitate to contact me by email or at the telephone number below.

Regards,

Marion Law

____________________________

Marion Law

Chief Registrar/ Chef de l’homologation

Registration Directorate/Direction gnrale d’homologation

PMRA/ARLA

Health Canada, Sant Canada

tel.:  613-736-3704

fax:  613-736-3707

—– Original Message —–

From: Sandra Finley [sabest1 AT sasktel.net]

Sent: 2010-02-05 05:36 PM CST

To: Marion Law

Subject: RE: Status of Movento in Canada

Thank-you Marion. 

I am wondering whether there is a typo?

A “global joint  review that involved  Austria , the US and Canada”.

Should Austria be “Australia”??

And I am wondering whether a “global” joint review” should read a “3-nation joint review”?

Thank-you for your clarification.

Best wishes,  Sandra Finley

– – – – – — –  — – –

SENT:  Feb 06, 2010

Ms. Finley – This is to confirm that Austria is the correct partner in the global review. Also as Austria was the rapporteur state for the EU this is considered to be global review.

Hope this helps clarify.

2009-12-29 Big Win for Bees: Judge Pulls Pesticide. Bayer’s “Movento” (spirotetramat)

 Food  No Responses »
Dec 292009
 

Movento (Bayer ag chemical threat to bees).  Food production dependent on pollinators.

See the appended press release.   Congratulations to the Natural Resources Defense Council in the U.S.!   

It is insanity to be putting more chemicals that kill bees into the environment when we know the vast amounts of our food crops that cannot be produced if the pollinators disappear.  We know the bees are disappearing.  I suspect we know it because bees are raised commercially, they have direct monetary value.  

I do not know if anyone is keeping track of other pollinators such as wasp populations which do not have any “ownership” and hence no financial value as far as our antiquated economic measurements are concerned.  

I sent the (next posting) to the Bureaucrats who are responsible for the pesticides used in Canada.  I see where others have sent letters to Stephen Harper (pm AT pm.gc.ca or harper.s  AT  parl.gc.ca), and to the Federal Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz (ritz.g  AT parl.gc.ca).  (People in Saskatchewan should definitely contact (phone or email) Ritz – he is from North Battleford.)  

The Ministers and Bureaucrats in Health and in Environment should also receive a wave of protest over the licensing of spirotetramat. (The Dept of Health is responsible for the licensing of the chemicals.) 

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, INFORMATION ON SPIROTETRAMAT:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_pmrl2008-19/index-eng.php 

May 29, 2008;  Date Modified: 2009-03-23     

“…The evaluation of these spirotetramat applications indicated that the end-use products have merit and value and that the human health and environmental risks associated with their proposed uses are acceptable.” 

The appended press release talks to the environmental risks.  We have circulated information about the bee situation; people know it from the media.  You can google to get more information.  Statements such as this from the Government are deception.  The risk (killing off of pollinator populations) is not acceptable.  Common sense tells you that.  I cannot understand these so-called “experts”.

NOTE:  By googling the name of one of the responsible bureaucrats (Connie Moase) I came up with this website. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/fpt/_wg-gt/pdntewg-gtdpresnc-eng.php   If you scroll down you will find names and email addresses for a number of bureaucrats from across Canada, a “working group”.  I also sent the following email to them.     

If I thought that yelling at them would work, I’d do it.  What they are doing is madness, in the service of these corporations. 

Thanks to Larry for drawing the U.S. court decision which makes the sale of spirotetramat immediately illegal, to attention. 

the nastiest chemical known to bees, at least up until “Movento,” the neonicitanoid family, continues to be used with abandon, in North America
Regards, Larry
===== 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  

Contact:            Josh Mogerman at 312-651-7909 

Big Win for Bees: Judge Pulls Pesticide

Bee toxic Movento pulled from market for proper evaluation 

NEW YORK (December 29, 2009) – A pesticide that could be dangerously toxic to America’s honey bees must be pulled from store shelves as a result of a suit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Xerces Society. In an order issued last week, a federal court in New York invalidated EPA’s approval of the pesticide spirotetramat (manufactured by Bayer CropScience under the trade names Movento and Ultor) and ordered the agency to reevaluate the chemical in compliance with the law. The court’s order goes into effect on January 15, 2010, and makes future sales of Movento illegal in the United States . 

“This sends EPA and Bayer back to the drawing board to reconsider the potential harm to bees caused by this new pesticide,” said NRDC Senior Attorney Aaron Colangelo. “EPA admitted to approving the pesticide illegally, but argued that its violations of the law should have no consequences. The Court disagreed and ordered the pesticide to be taken off the market until it has been properly evaluated. Bayer should not be permitted to run what amounts to an uncontrolled experiment on bees across the country without full consideration of the consequences.” 

In June 2008, EPA approved Movento for nationwide use on hundreds of different crops, including apples, pears, peaches, oranges, tomatoes, grapes, strawberries, almonds, and spinach. The approval process went forward without the advance notice and opportunity for public comment that is required by federal law and EPA’s own regulations. In addition, EPA failed to evaluate fully the potential damage to the nation’s already beleaguered bee populations or conduct the required analysis of the pesticide’s economic, environmental, and social costs. 

Beekeepers and scientists have expressed concern over Movento’s potential impact on beneficial insects such as honey bees. The pesticide impairs the insect’s ability to reproduce. EPA’s review of Bayer’s scientific studies found that trace residues of Movento brought back to the hive by adult bees could cause “significant mortality” and “massive perturbation” to young honeybees (larvae).  

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), bees pollinate $15 billion worth of crops grown in America . USDA also claims that one out of every three mouthfuls of food in the typical American diet has a connection to bee pollination. Yet bee colonies in the United States have seen significant declines in recent years due to a combination of stressors, almost certainly including insecticide exposure. 

“This case underscores the need for us to re-examine how we evaluate the impact of pesticides and other chemicals in the environment,” said Colangelo. “In approving Movento, EPA identified but ignored potentially serious harms to bees and other pollinators. We are in the midst of a pollinator crisis, with more than a third of our colonies disappearing in recent years. Given how important these creatures are to our food supply, we simply cannot look past these sorts of problems.” 

The court decision is available at http://docs.nrdc.org/wildlife/wil_09122901.asp 

More information on threats to honey bees at www.BeeSafe.org

# # # 

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.3 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York , Washington , Chicago , Los Angeles , San Francisco and Beijing .

______________________________

Josh Mogerman

Senior Media Associate

Natural Resources Defense Council

Midwest Program

312-651-7909 – o | 773-531-5359 – m

(Please note that my phone numbers have changed.)

jmogerman  AT NRDC.org

2009-12-24 NUKE: The University has soul-searching to do while it still has a soul to save.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Nuclear, Propaganda, Sustainability, Take back the University  No Responses »
Dec 242009
 

from Dec. 24th R-Town News: 

The University Needs Some Soul-Searching about Sustainability 

By Jim Harding

Can we learn about the challenge sustainability presents our universities, from the roles professors play in public policy?  On November 26th Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) member, physics Professor Mathie lectured as if he was presenting “the basic science going on in these discussions”. This wasn’t really true. Whether discussing radiation, fission, power generation, nuclear wastes or nuclear medicine, Mathie selected knowledge to give backing to his support for the nuclear industry. He did what philosophers of science call post-hoc rationalization, creating an intellectual foundation for opinions already held. This gets us in serious trouble. Mathie ruling out the cost of energy didn’t really dodge the “economic bullet”, as shown by Minister Boyd’s December 17th announcement that nuclear is too costly and inappropriate for our grid. And not seriously talking about environmental health doesn’t make us safer, for we don’t live in a make-believe world.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Discussing the build-up of nuclear wastes, Professor Mathie argued “it’s not because there’s no solution or no research.” Leave it to the expert, right? Yet the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is all industry-based with industry-appointed experts. And the federal review (1991-98) concluded Canadian’s don’t support deep geological storage, which the UDP and NWMO continue to promote. No mention that deep geological research has been stopped in Ontario and that both Quebec and Ontario ban nuclear wastes; or that centralized storage allowing future reprocessing of spent fuel makes plutonium more available for weapons. Or that President Obama just reaffirmed the US ban on reprocessing, a ban supported by the US Academy of Scientists, including its physicists.

Mathie lectured about “risks in life”. He reiterated that nearly one-half of us will get cancer and one-quarter of us will die from it. But this wasn’t a wake-up call to better understand how these risks accumulated to bring cancer from the 8th to 2nd cause of death. No, his risk philosophy was to get us to believe that there were relatively few additional risks from the nuclear industry when compared to overall cancer. Sounds reassuring, but this greatly oversimplifies the science of epidemiology and how health policy research should be done.  The smoking industry obscured its major role in lung cancer by financing studies that compared lung cancer among smokers with average cancer rates. Differences were found but they weren’t statistical enough, industry claimed, so they stalled public health intervention. This was fallacious because the average rates already included lung cancers among smokers. You need to compare the lung cancer rate of non-smokers to smokers, which showed cigarettes are the primary cause of lung cancer. 

Mathie doesn’t stand alone in his balancing act. The Chair of the UDP, Professor Florizone, also a physicist, wrote a piece for the Nov. 19th Star Phoenix entitled “Nuclear industry offers challenges and opportunities”. He wasn’t identified as the Financial VP of the University of Saskatchewan, which would be a major beneficiary if the UDP’s proposals go ahead. Rather, Florizone is identified as a “policy fellow at the John-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy”. Interestingly, the UDP that Florizone chaired said “Partnering with the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School …would help create relevant policy research and promote public discussion of nuclear-related issues” (p. 80-81). It all seems very incestuous. This School has already sponsored Florizone but to my knowledge hasn’t invited anyone outside the orbit of the nuclear industry. The UDP fully admits that “A close working relationship exists between Saskatchewan’s universities and industry”, and they want more. But there’s a cost, including for the quality of the education that the university provides. Blatant conflicts of interest such as we see with Professor Florizone will naturally increase with concentration of power.

Florizone’s opinion piece claims that “the nuclear option is cost competitive”, but then lists “capital costs” as one of the nuclear industry’s “challenges”. Yet he doesn’t mention that AECL’s recent proposal to the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) was three times the figure of $4.000 kW capacity he uses.  (The UDP used $3,850.) How can an academic sworn to a version of the Hippocratic Oath say this with a straight face?  As a Star Phoenix letter to the editor said, it is surprising “that a nuclear physicist working in finance should have taken so long to come to an awareness of this serious problem.”

INNOVATION SASKATCHEWAN

Has either the government or the universities learned anything from this debacle? Perhaps the recent announcement about university involvement in Innovation Saskatchewan provides a hint. Minster Boyd announced the board would include two Deans from the universities, which might seem all right, except they are both from engineering.  The board includes the Executive Director of the Saskatchewan Mining Association (SMA) and CEO of the Calgary-based drilling company Total Energy Services Ltd. It sounds like the government wants academics to help industry expand uranium mining, oil and gas and perhaps tarsands in Saskatchewan. Apparently, here we go again!

What’s wrong with this picture? A narrow, instrumental relationship between the university and industry can never serve the greater public interest. Not only will the independence of the university be questioned but so, too, will the credibility of its education. The university has a higher purpose than colluding with government and industry to expand unsustainable economic growth, so it’s probably time to start asking fundamental questions about knowledge.  For centuries we’ve tried to understand ourselves and the world by breaking things down and taking them apart. While we’ve learned a lot of analytical knowledge from this, when we look at the effects of our narrow-minded applications (e.g. climate change) we soon realize we haven’t become wiser. Sustainability challenges us to be wiser; to put the pieces back together and to finally realize that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Applying a compartmentalized view of the world may be of short-term value to industry but industry’s bottom line is not sustainability. If we are going to learn to do better, the university will have to help. It has some soul-searching to do while it still has a soul to save.

Jim Harding’s website – http://jimharding.brinkster.net

2009-12-15 NUKE: Introduction to corporatocracy, nuclear given green light in Alberta

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Nuclear  No Responses »
Dec 152009
 

A quick note before the press release on nuclear green light in Alberta.  Many thanks to our neighbours and friends in C.A.U.S.E. for the alert.   

INTRODUCTION TO CORPORATOCRACY

My next email works on the definition and characteristics of corporatocracy, a word not found in standard dictionaries.  Discussion is hampered for parts of reality that have no vocabulary.  Corporatocracy is on Wikipedia but needs more work. 

I propose corporatocracy as the form of government that holds sway in Canada.  The Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s recent “public meetings” in Saskatoon are a prime example of the shortfalls of corporatocracy.  The following news from Alberta repeats the point that democracy is more myth than reality.  

For maybe 3 decades Canadians have been in the process of making a choice over the idea of democracy versus corporatocracy, each with its own distinct set of values.  We should be mindful of outcomes.

/Sandra

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Elena Schacherl
Date: Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Subject: Fw: nuclear given green light
MEDIA RELEASE               December 14, 2009     

Citizens Advocating the Use of Sustainable Energy (CAUSE)

P.O. Box 32007,
Calgary, Alberta, T2T 5X6  
www.nuclearfreealberta.ca <http://www.nuclearfreealberta.ca>

 
NUCLEAR GREEN LIGHT BAD NEWS FOR ALBERTANS

 December 14, 2009, Calgary, Alberta

Today the Alberta Government released the results from the public consultation on nuclear held earlier this year.  At the same time, Mel Knight announced that nuclear power would be considered as an energy option in this province on a case-by-case basis.    

Elena Schacherl, Chair of Citizens Advocating the Use of Sustainable Energy (CAUSE), says:

³We are extremely disappointed. The Stelmach government today not only released the consultation results, but clearly gave the go ahead to nuclear energy in Alberta.²   

³The government has taken a pronuclear stance from the start.  First they appointed a biased nuclear panel that included a board member with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. This was followed by a slanted and one-sided report, followed by a short consultation period and no public hearings.²  

In releasing the consultation report, the government chose to focus on the response that gave them the answer they wanted.   Both the questions and results are ambiguous. In particular, the question on considering nuclear on a case by case basis was clearly intended to get the government off the hook in taking a position on nuclear.   In the online workbook, which saw the largest number of Albertans consulted (about 3600), 55% were opposed to nuclear.   Moreover, the consultation report show that 75% of Albertans are concerned about the health impacts of nuclear and 77% do not want to leave a nuclear waste problem for future generations.  Another 75% advocate looking to renewable energy to meet our future electricity needs.   

Robbin Penney, CAUSE Secretary says, ³The provincial government has failed to hear the majority of Albertans who have clearly said they do not want nuclear power in Alberta.  The Alberta government is misleading Albertans by saying they will not subsidize the nuclear industry.  Clearly, Bill 50 – the controversial transmission line bill – will allow nuclear plants to export surplus electricity on the very same transmission line for which all Albertans are going to pay².   We can also expect our electricity costs to skyrocket if nuclear reactors are built. And the taxpayer will continue to pay the billions in federal subsidies needed to support nuclear.  

Elena Schacherl concludes, ³CAUSE will continue to do everything possible to oppose nuclear power in Alberta despite the government¹s decision.²  

                                                            –30–  

For more information, please contact:                                                                          

Elena Schacherl, CAUSE Co-chair      

nuclearfreealberta@gmail.com                  

Calgary, 403-244-8001 or 403-860-3372 (cell) or                                                                               

Robbin Penney, CAUSE Secretary

Calgary, 403-277-9551 robbin@veloemail.com

2009-12-10 Legal argument, Charter Section 8 Privacy, delivered to the Court. Census Lockheed Martin trial.

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Dec 102009
 

 IN THE

PROVINCIAL COURT

FOR SASKATCHEWAN

JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

RESPONDENT

– and –

SANDRA FINLEY

APPLICANT

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE

APPLICANT SANDRA FINLEY

(Charter s. 8)

I.  OVERVIEW

1.         This case is about whether the criminalization of a refusal to answer census questions is constitutional. Sandra Finley wants to protect her personal information from being collected by the government, because she considers certain information personal and private, including information sought by the Government of Canada merely for statistical purposes. When she received a census request in 2006, she refused to participate, because the information sought by the census was within a biographical core that she wanted to keep private. Sandra now faces criminal charges for her refusal to participate in the 2006 Census (the “Census”). Sandra has the right to protect her personal information from the government without fear of prosecution – a right that is embodied in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sandra believes that the criminalization of her refusal is contrary to her right to privacy, as set out in the Charter.

II. BACKGROUND

2.         In or about May 2006, Sandra Finley conscientiously objected to filling in the census response (long form) for a number of reasons, including an objection on the basis that the information sought by the census form was personal information which would reveal a biographical core of personal information about the Applicant which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.

3.         The Census form requested information such as information on age, sex, marital status, family, household and dwelling characteristics, employment and place of work, ethnic origin, income and earnings, citizenship and immigration status, and education. The information sought from the Applicant is personal information that she considers private.

4.         Ms Finley was charged with refusal to complete a Census response pursuant to s. 31 of the Statistics Act.

5.         Ms Finley considered the information requested by the long form census to be a breach of her privacy rights, contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

6.         The demand made by Statistics Canada was an unreasonable search constituting a violation of Ms Finley’s rights as guaranteed by s. 8 of the Charter.  The only appropriate remedy would be a declaration that s. 31 of the Statistics Act is of no force and effect, or, alternatively, a declaration that s. 31 of the Statistics Act shall be read down so that it does not apply to objections to completing a Canadian census.

III. ISSUES

1.               Ms Finley submits that:

a)     The demand to fill in the Canadian Census was a breach of her rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

b)     The criminalization of refusal to participate in the census is a breach of her right to privacy as set out in s. 8 of the Charter; and

c)     Section 31 of the Statistics Act should be declared to be of no force and effect, or alternatively, should be read down so as to decriminalize conscientious objection to filling in a census form. 

IV. LAW AND ARGUMENT

2.               It is trite law that the Charter applies to federal legislation, such as the Statistics Act, and that the Charter applies to criminal prosecutions, such as the present situation.

3.               Ms Finley believes that the demand made by the government to fill in the Canadian Census violated her right to privacy under section 8 of the Charter, and submits that s. 31 of the Statistics Act should be struck or read down pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter and s. 52 of the Constitution Act.

A. The demand to fill in the Canadian Census was a breach of the Applicant’s rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

4.               Section 8 of the Charter includes the right to be free from arbitrary detention, and reads as follows:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Schedule “B” to the Constitution Act, 1982, s. 8

5.               Section 31 of the Statistics Act reads as follows:

False or unlawful information

31. Every person who, without lawful excuse,

(a) refuses or neglects to answer, or wilfully answers falsely, any question requisite for obtaining any information sought in respect of the objects of this Act or pertinent thereto that has been asked of him by any person employed or deemed to be employed under this Act, or

(b) refuses or neglects to furnish any information or to fill in to the best of his knowledge and belief any schedule or form that the person has been required to fill in, and to return the same when and as required of him pursuant to this Act, or knowingly gives false or misleading information or practises any other deception thereunder

is, for every refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.

1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 29.

6.               An assessment of the constitutionality of a search and seizure, or of a statute authorizing a search or seizure, must focus on its “reasonable” or “unreasonable” impact on the subject of the search or the seizure. The guarantee only protects a reasonable expectation of privacy. A reasonable expectation of privacy is to be determined on the basis of the totality of the circumstances.  If an accused person establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy, the inquiry must then proceed to determine whether the search was conducted in a reasonable manner.

R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 126 (SCC)

Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 (SCC).

7.               The Supreme Court of Canada has concluded that the values of dignity, integrity and autonomy are paramount in Canadian society, and, therefore, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a “biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state”.  The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that this would include information which tends to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual.

R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281 (SCC)

8.               The test for a reasonable expectation of privacy, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, is whether the information sought would which tends to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of Ms Finley. Ms Finley submits that much, if not all, of the information sought by the Census, would reveal intimate details, lifestyle and personal choices of the Applicant.

9.               Ms Finley’s objection is to the Census’ request for information about age, sex, marital status, family, household and dwelling characteristics, employment and place of work, ethnic origin, income and earnings, citizenship and immigration status, and education, which all fall within the biographical core of information that may tend to reveal intimate details and lifestyle and personal choices of the Applicant. Each of the categories of information sought with respect to the Census can be considered to be within Ms Finley person core of biographical information.

10.            Ms Finley clearly has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information sought by the Census. Accordingly, she submits that the onus shifts to the crown to show that the law and the collection of her personal information are reasonable.

B.        The criminalization of refusal to participate in the census is a breach of the Applicant’s right to privacy as set out in s. 8 of the Charter.

11.            As stated above, s. 8 of the Charter guaranteed the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Once Ms Finley has established a reasonable expectation of privacy in her personal information, the onus shifts to the Crown to show that the law affecting that reasonable expectation of privacy is reasonable.

12.            Ms Finley would not have a problem with the Census if she had a reasonable opportunity to refuse to participate. By stark contrast, the Statistics Act not only mandates participation – it criminalizes the refusal to participate. This fact cannot be emphasized enough – refusal to disclose information to the state in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy is a criminal offence.

13.            Ms Finley understands that the Census is intended to collect data about Canadians, including statistical information relating to the commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and general activities and condition of the people. The Applicant has no objection to the Government of Canada endeavouring to collect certain information from its population under the Statistics Act.

Statistics Act, supra, at s. 3.

14.            However, the privacy rights embodied in s. 8 of the Charter must be taken into consideration once the refusal to answer Census questions is criminalized, which is the effect of s. 31 of the Statistics Act.

15.            The onus lies on the Crown to determine whether the search was reasonable. The Crown bears the burden of demonstrating, on the balance of probabilities, that a search was authorized by a reasonable law and carried out in a reasonable manner.

R. v. Buhay, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631, at para. 32.

16.            Ms Finley’s argument lies in the fact that the search – or the request to fill out the Census – was not authorized by a reasonable law.

17.            Given the privacy interests of Canadians pursuant to the Charter, which include a broad range of information, Ms Finley submits that the Crown cannot meet the onus of showing that the law criminalizing refusal to respond to the Census is reasonable.

18.            We are dealing with a statutory regime, the Statistics Act, which criminalizes certain acts and omissions. Unlike some of the other case law dealing with privacy in the criminal context, we are not dealing with a search as part of an investigation. However, we are not dealing with an administrative search either. The Supreme Court of Canada has differentiated between the types of searches as follows:

Since individuals have different expectations of privacy in different contexts and with regard to different kinds of information and documents, it follows that the standard of review of what is “reasonable” in a given context must be flexible if it is to be realistic and meaningful.  A distinction must be drawn between seizures in the criminal or quasi-criminal context to which the full rigors of the criteria in Hunter v. Southam Inc. will apply, and seizures in the administrative or regulatory context to which a lesser standard may apply, depending upon the legislative scheme under review.  When Dickson C.J. said in Simmons that departures from the Hunter criteria would be rare, he was not applying his mind to searches or seizures in the context of regulatory legislation.  He was addressing as in the cases of Hunter and Simmons themselves searches or seizures in a criminal or quasi-criminal context: 

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627 (SCC)

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3 (SCC).

19.            Even purely administrative provisions in a statutory regime, such as a provision of the Income Tax Act, will not necessarily avoid scrutiny under s. 8 of the Charter.

Baron v. Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416 (SCC).

20.            In the present case, we are dealing with the privacy of information that is clearly personal information, and the state is only seeking disclosure of that information for statistical purposes. As mentioned above, the simple fact that the state is seeking disclosure is not the issue – the issue is the criminalization of the refusal to provide information. It is the criminalization of the refusal that renders s. 31 of the Statistics Act contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

21.            The central question that must be answered, at this stage in the analysis, is whether the criminalization of the refusal to provide Census responses to the state for statistical purposes is reasonable. Ms Finley submits that the criminalization is not reasonable – we are not dealing with a taxation scheme here (which has voluntary reporting and primarily administrative penalties). We are not dealing with the regulation of corporations or securities where an individual has to disclose information to obtain registration, or participate in a financial market (which are voluntary, and all have primarily administrative penalties). We are dealing with the collection of a vast amount of information by the state simply for statistical purposes – Ms Finley submits that there is no way that the criminalization of refusal to provide personal information for statistical purposes is reasonable.

22.            Ms. Finley therefore submits that the Crown cannot meet its onus of showing that the criminalization of refusal to reply to the Census is a reasonable law.

C.        Section 31 of the Statistics Act should be declared to be of no force and effect, or alternatively, should be read down so as to decriminalize conscientious objection to filling in a census form.

23.            Section 24(1) of the Charter reads as follows:

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply  to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Schedule “B” to the Constitution Act, 1982, s 24(1)

24.            Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act reads as follows:

52.(1)  The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Constitution Act, s. 52(1)

25.            Section 31 of the Statistics Act is reproduced above.

26.            Pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter, this Honourable Court has the power to declare that s. 31 of the Statistics Act is of no force and effect, or to read that section down to the extent that s. 31 of the Statistics Act is inconsistent with the Applicant’s privacy rights as found in s. 8 of the Charter.

27.            The Supreme Court of Canada has commented on the possibility of reading down a provision contained in a piece of legislation as follows:

Depending upon the circumstances, a court may simply strike down, it may strike down and temporarily suspend the declaration of invalidity, or it may resort to the techniques of reading down or reading in.  The flexibility of the language of s. 52 is not a new development in Canadian constitutional law.  The courts have always struck down laws only to the extent of the inconsistency using the doctrine of severance or “reading down”.  Severance is used by the courts so as to interfere with the laws adopted by the legislature as little as possible.  In that way, as much of the legislative purpose as possible may be realized. 

Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679 (SCC).

28.            Ms. Finley submits that s. 31 of the Statistics Act is inconsistent with s. 8 of the Charter, and should be declared to be of no force and effect.

29.            Ms Finley, and other conscientious objectors to participation in the Census, should have a right to object to providing personal information to the state without the possibility of facing a criminal charge. Simply put, the criminalization of a refusal to provide census information that includes a significant amount of lifestyle and personal information, is inconsistent with the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure set out in s. 8 of the Charter. This criminalization renders s. 31 of the Statistics Act unreasonable in its entirety, and Ms Finley submits that this Honourable Court should declare the section to be of no force and effect.

30.            Ms Finley submits that, in the alternative, s. 31 of the Statistics Act should be read down so as to eliminate its application to people who refuse to provide answers in response to a Canadian Census. Given the broad drafting of s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, and the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada, the power to read down a statutory provision lies within the power of this Honourable Court.

31.            Ms. Finley submits that her reasonable expectation of privacy, combined with the Crown’s inability to show the criminal provision of the Statistics Act is reasonable, leads to the conclusion that s. 31 of the Statistics Act should be declared to be of no force and effect pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter and s. 52 of the Constitution Act.

32.            Alternatively, Ms Finley submits that s. 31 of the Statistics Act should be read down to exclude people who refuse or neglect to participate in the Canadian Census.

V. RELIEF SOUGHT

33.            The Applicant respectfully requests the following relief:

a)     for an Order that the charge against the Applicant, Sandra Finley, pursuant to Section 31 of the Statistics Act be stayed pursuant to Section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

b)     An Order that s. 31 of the Statistics Act be declared of no force and effect pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter and s. 52 of the Constitution Act.

c)     Alternatively, and Order that s. 32 should be read down to exclude people who refuse or neglect to participate in the Canadian Census, so as not to impose criminal sanctions based on a refusal to participate in the collection of statistics.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

DATED at the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this ______ day of ______________, 20__.

                                                Sandra Finley

                                                Per:______________________________________

                                                            Sandra Finley

TO:                 

Provincial Court

for Saskatchewan

                        Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

                        Attention:  Janice Kaminski or Cindy Ritchie

AND TO:        The Attorney General for Saskatchewan

                        c/o Barrie Miller – Saskatoon Prosecutions Unit

AND TO:        The Attorney General for Canada

                        c/o Byron Wright

                        Federal Prosecution Service, Saskatoon

2009-12-04 NUKE, Nuclear Waste. Who is the NWMO? Tactics. John Ralston Saul “On Equilibrium”.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Knowledge Base, Propaganda, Radioactive waste  No Responses »
Dec 042009
 

There is good information in this posting if you have time to scroll through.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is holding public meetings on very short notice.  Please help get people to the meetings.  See items #2 and #3.  Thanks!

UPDATE, thanks to Herman:  Expert panel recommends new isotope reactor   http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/03/medical-isotopes-reactor003.html

Good grief!  We need to respond and find out why the much, much less expensive options for producing isotopes weren’t recommended.  Someone needs to answer. It’s our money.

I apologize for this email.  The information is needed; I am not editing it as should be done, no time.

Sandra

– – – – – – – – – –

CONTENTS

(0)  INTRO

(1)  CANADIANS WITH CONNECTIONS TO SOUTH ASIA HAVE A SPECIAL CONNECTION TO THE NUCLEAR AGENDA AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL

(2)  IMPORTANT!!  NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (NWMO) MEETINGS IN SASKATCHEWAN NEXT WEEK (DECEMBER 7-8-9)

(3)  IMPORTANT!! NWMO MEETING METIS NATION IN SASKATOON SATURDAY DECEMBER 5TH, SASKATOON INN

(4)  CAMECO NORTHERN TOUR UNDERWAY, WELL-FUNDED

(5)  WHO IS THE NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION? AND ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFO

(6)  KNOW HOW THE MEETINGS ARE STRUCTURED

(7)  UNDERSTAND THE TACTICS OF BIG-TIME MANIPULATORS

(8)  KNOW WHAT TO ASK

(9)  STEFANIA’S RESPONSE TO “90% OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE CAN BE RECYCLED”

(10)  HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN NORTH AMERICA, WHAT IN INDIA?

(11)  THE ROAD BACK TO COMMON SENSE, SHARED KNOWLEDGE

= = =  = = = = = = = = = = = =

(0)  INTRO

I cannot find the information:  I think that the decision on the first phase of the high-level radioactive waste disposal plan (ostensibly for Canada but most likely for North America) is December 31st. I think that is why there is a flurry of activity.

It’s clear the decision on where the “willing host community” will be located has been made:

– The NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization) met in Saskatoon last spring.  They wanted a private meeting with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations with no media in attendance.  The FSIN said the meeting is open and there will be representatives from “the other side”.   (INSERT:  later, in 2010 the NWMO gave $1 million to the FSIN.)

– The NWMO came here again in September, this time for closed-to-the-public “stakeholder” meetings.

–  I saw reference to a meeting they held with the Metis Nation in October.

– They’re back again now in December for “public information meetings” and another meeting with the Metis Nation.

– Cameco is simultaneously running like mad around northern Saskatchewan.

If these activities of the industry fail to make clear that a decision on the locating of “the willing host community” has been made, add this in:

– the Government of Saskatchewan’s Uranium Development Partnership Report includes high-level radioactive waste disposal

– the University of Saskatchewan’s Canadian Centre of Nuclear Studies contains in its mandate “safe storage”, a euphemism for high-level radioactive waste disposal.

Public consultations were a sham.  I guess we have to do something more to reinforce our 84% “no” vote.

We are inundated.  We need to increase our numbers.  Please invite more persons with connections to South Asia into the network. Stephen Harper’s recent nuke sales to India are related and reason.

For item #3 (NWMO meeting), please spread the word: request for Saskatonians to attend the NWMO meeting with the Metis Nation, Saturday Nov 5th, 8:30 am, Saskatoon Inn.

– – – – – – – –  – –

Radio-active waste disposal HERE.

Stephen Harper’s sales of nukes THERE (to India).

If you know the connections and care about other people, you will want to share the nuke information from our network with more Canadians whose origins are in South Asia.  We need to find them.

It will be mutually beneficial.

Item # 11,  THE ROAD BACK TO COMMON SENSE, SHARED KNOWLEDGE  is an aid to understanding the false foundation upon which the NWMO meetings are presented.  There is no context, no memory, no experience, nor ethics factored in.

Decisions on high-level radioactive waste are being made by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.  They are the industry.  Corporations “sell”.  They use advertising which is essentially propaganda.  It is entirely inappropriate to use a corporate sales job on high-level radioactive waste disposal.  Sound decisions need to be made by citizens.  The public should not be misled.

– – – – –

We want a transition to renewable, truly clean, non-destructive energy supplies that are locally owned.  We do not want private large corporate ownership of electricity — this is all headed in that direction as explained in earlier emails.

/Sandra

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

(1)  CANADIANS WITH CONNECTIONS TO SOUTH ASIA HAVE A SPECIAL CONNECTION TO THE NUCLEAR AGENDA AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL

High-level radioactive waste is generated by nuclear reactors. Saskatchewan is in line to receive all the ACCUMULATED radioactive waste from North America.

India is in line to receive 25 to 30 new nuclear reactors, thanks to Canadians (Stephen Harper).  We don’t want them here.

We banned asbestos here, or so we thought – turns out we didn’t, really. It didn’t kill the industry:  we merely contributed tax-payer money to exploit and ship to markets in India.

In Saskatchewan and in Alberta, the nuclear agenda is a wrong response to resource depletion.  It is also a corporate response at public expense. It seeks to assert centralized control and to extend large private corporate ownership of energy.

Think hard.  WHO do you know whose heritage lies in South Asia?  Or, google and find some organizations.  Send them this email.  We have some representatives in our network, but not enough.

Stephen Harper is courting ethnic Canadians and their votes.  Following his recent visit to India, “They’re both just fascinating spots,” Harper said. “It really is just overwhelming. So this was just a tremendous opportunity to see and experience the roots of so many Indo-Canadians.”

Stephen Harper, salesman for the nuclear/uranium corporations, has just “signed a memorandum of understanding that will let Canada play a role in India’s planned building of 25 to 30 nuclear reactors. …  India’s reactor demand for uranium may triple in the next 15 years, according to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based Cameco Corp.” But note that it’s not a done deal.  It still has to be ratified by Parliament, as I understand.

People living in India should insist that their Government KNOW where the high-level radioactive waste is going, BEFORE these new reactors are built.  The Bangladesh Times says that some of the radioactive waste from current reactors is going into the sea – – see item #10.

We work hard to make things better here at home.  I, as a Canadian can have dignity internationally when we work to get the same things for other countries, as we have for ourselves.

MORE people in South Asia need to have the information we share in the Nuke networks here.  Stephen Harper will have swept the issue of high-level radioactive waste under the carpet.

To stop Saskatchewan (or Ontario or New Brunswick) from becoming a dump site for the fifty years’ of accumulated radioactive waste on the North American continent we need help.  (Quebec has already passed a resolution to stop the importation of high-level radioactive waste into Quebec – smart them! Manitoba did it a long time ago, in 1987.)

Canadians have worked hard with people in India (e.g. Vandana Shiva) to stop corporate ownership of seeds.  Maybe we can work together on this nuke topic, and add more.

In Saskatoon there is a vibrant group of public-spirited people in the East Indian and in other South Asian communities.

(ASIDE:  I am forever grateful.  My number one hero in history is Gandhi.  There’s a sculptured bust of him in downtown Saskatoon at 2nd Ave and 21st Street.  From 2000:

“Some people find it a bit odd that a statue of Mahatma Gandhi should join a group that includes Gordie Howe, Gabriel Dumont and Ray Hnatyshyn.

In the spirit of friendship, and at the request of the Indian community, the Government of India has given a bronze sculpture of Ghandi to all the people of Saskatoon.

Dr. Prakash Sulakhe is the chairman of the Gandhi Statue Committee. “The influence of Gandhi’s philosophy has transcended geographical borders,” he says.”

Back to business:  Yes, the NWMO ran large ads in the main newspapers (page A9 of the Saskatoon Star Phoenix) so they can claim broad public consultation.  One weeks’ notice. One weeks’ notice is abuse-of-process, of course.  But never mind.  It takes more than that to stop us.

Cheers!

Sandra

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

(2)  IMPORTANT!!  NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (NWMO) MEETINGS IN SASKATCHEWAN NEXT WEEK (DECEMBER 7-8-9)

PLEASE help to get as many people as possible to these meetings.  Whether we become a repository for the accumulated high-level radioactive waste from the whole continent depends on it.  There are OTHER WAYS to approach high-level radioactive waste.

PUBLIC MEETINGS – Thanks to Elaine:

(NOTE:  see the links. You can also provide WRITTEN submissions to the NWMO.  I would suggest that you cc these to Brad Wall and Stephen Harper and the President of the University of Saskatchewan, Peter MacKinnon.)

The NWMO is looking for a “willing host community”-  folks who want to live with a high level radioactive waste dump.  Saskatchewan targeted.  This is storage for North America’s nuclear waste.  One-time construction cost:  $24 billion, trucking costs $200 million annually for 30 years of operation.

Costs recovered from public:  electricity bills or from government handouts.  What do you think?

Find out what they are up to.  Share your thoughts on whether the proposed process is appropriate and what changes, if any, need to be made.  They say they want to hear from you.

(From Sandra:  Item # 6, COMMON SENSE  is an aid to understanding the false foundation upon which the NWMO meetings are presented.)

You are invited to information sessions (from 2 – 9 p.m.)

REGINA:  Monday Dec 7th:  Delta Regina

PRINCE ALBERT:  Tuesday Dec 8th:  Art Hauser Centre

SASKATOON:  Dec 9th Delta Bessborough

For maps and additional info see:  http://www.nwmo.ca/events?event

For a copy of the document under discussion copy & paste this web address into your browser:

http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads_managed/MediaFiles/470_InvitationtoReviewaProposedProcessforSelectingaSite.pdf

= = = = = = = = =

(3)  IMPORTANT!! NWMO MEETING METIS NATION IN SASKATOON SATURDAY DECEMBER 5TH, SASKATOON INN, 8:30 am

Thanks to Vi by way of Elaine:    SENT:  Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:15 PM

I am invited to attend a meeting with the Metis Nation in S’toon for Saturday Dec 5th  from 830 am to 2  at the S’toon Inn.  The Invitation reads

Information Session

You are invited to attend NWMO Roundtable as phase two of discussions about the NWMO site selection process. This event will be to follow-up the 1st phase of engagements that occured in October of this year.

MN-S staff will be providing a re-cap of the 1st phase of engagements and opening the floor for a roundtable discussion and opportunity for further questions and feedback.

I just received the  mail yesterday (INSERT:  December 2nd)  — they said to call and comfirm by Nov 20th — I called this morning and am registered to attend — I have a room booked for Friday night and they are paying our accomdations and travel and meals — they are providing lunch and breakfast.

if you can pass this on to others it would be great — I am not sure as to what will happen there it was only people from NWMO last time giving their side and there was no one against — and so it was all onesided — if there was someone there in S’toon who could come and maybe be able to answer some of our questions From the other side it would be great — see NWMO is paying the shot here  –

so of course they would not have any negative comments

anyway  see what could happen

Thanxs Vi

– – – – – –  –

Later:

Hi

I was talking to one of the Metis Guys and he said to ask if there was anyone in t the anti-nuke group who were by any chance metis  – as these are the only people who can  ask questions there  – it would make it easier for me  if there were. Thanxs Vi

= = = = = = = = = =  ==  = = =

(4)  CAMECO NORTHERN TOUR UNDERWAY, WELL-FUNDED

The CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) office in Saskatoon has the details.  Or, I can forward an email with jpeg attachments to you.  I don’t have time to find a web link just now.

We are being overrun by meetings organized by the nuclear/uranium industry.

The overwhelming “no” registered by the public consultation process this summer, as reported by Dan Perrins (chair of the public consultation process) clearly means nothing to the Government, the industry and the University’s plans.

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

(5)  WHO IS THE NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION?  AND ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFO

Thanks to Gordon Edwards:

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is wholly owned by the Canadian nuclear industry. Its Board of Directors consists of appointees from Ontario Power Generation, Hydro-Quebec, and New Brunswick Power — the three utilities that produce almost all of Canada’s high-level radioactive waste (otherwise known as irradiated fuel).

Most of the Board members are executives of these  utilities.

For a critique of the NWMO approach, see  http://www.ccnr.org/follow_path_back.pdf

– – – – – –

Some additional sources of info on the NWMO in case anyone would like:

Sierra Club:  http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/reactors/high-level-waste.shtml

Nuclear Waste Management Organization:  http://www.nwmo.ca

= = = = = = = = = = = = =  =

(7)  UNDERSTAND THE TACTICS OF BIG-TIME MANIPULATORS

If anyone would like the chronology we just circulated, please ask me.  It shows the connections.  The American energy strategy is a north-south “Canada – U.S. Western Energy Corridor” to move nuclear electricity and tar sands oil (which needs nuclear power for mining, heating and processing).

The industry already has a large, 5-decades’ accumulation of radioactive waste in the U.S.  Barack Obama effectively shut down Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a repository for the waste.

Instead of halting the production of MORE radioactive waste, they have developed a slick sales job.

Understand the tactics. They assert something that is “inevitable” or “the only option”, which is not true.  There ARE other options; it just happens that those options are not attractive to the corporate make-money interest. Their options are hugely at our expense.

They are big-time manipulators:

–  “high-level radioactive waste” is now “used nuclear fuel” or “irradiated fuel” or a “used fuel bundle”.  Challenge them on their euphemisms.  “Spent fuel” is much more radioactive than the original “fuel bundles” which are not radioactive at all, not until after they are used in the reactor!  Refuse to use their sanitized and manipulating language.  An example we have used in the past:  tar sands is tar sands, not “oil sands” as they are now billed.

– the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) comes to us speaking sweetly of how they are not going to use government (our) money.

Yes but, they have basically one product (electricity). And one market – us.  What they don’t get from the Governments (tax-payer and resource revenues) they will get out of our pockets on electricity bills.  Ask the people in Ontario how it works.

–  The NWMO waves MONEY:  “This is a $16 – $24 billion project that will be implemented in phases”.  They also assure the “willing host community” that “operation of the facilities” would continue after construction .. would involve hundreds of workers .. Spending during this phase would be in the order of 200 million dollars each year for a period of 30 or more years.  … Depending on the host economic region, wealth creation in the form of business profits and personal income throughout the host region during the operation phase is expected to be billions of dollars.”

This is clever but again, fails to mention that a corporation has to pay for its costs.  Waste is a cost it has to cover.  In this case it is a mere $16 – $24 billion FOR THE CONSTRUCTION and then $200 million a year for 30 years or more.  ALL THAT MONEY will come from us, one way or another.  And it will mean that there is nothing left for investment in alternative and locally-owned energy.  Don’t kid yourself, Bruce Power, nuclear reactors and privately-owned electricity come along with high-level radioactive waste disposal.  I like Doug’s analogy of the salesman who gets his foot in the door, whatever way he can.

–  reassurances replace common sense.  In earlier emails we worked out how it is really a “ponzi scheme” – a few people make huge profits, but only if they can dupe you.

–  Ask the NWMO where the Americans are going to dispose of their radioactive waste now that Barack Obama has ended Yucca Mountain as an option?

–  the NWMO says it has set aside money to build the deep geological repository for the high-level radioactive waste.  Ask them what percentage of the cost they have set aside.  And how much that fund is worth in the wake of the economic crisis.  Don’t fall for assurances that hold no water.  And a container so small that the excess will soon overflow.

–  the NWMO is going to find a “willing host community”.  Be familiar with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)’s plan, ” with leading nations storing all the high-level waste from the entire group”.  Canada is a leading nation and Saskatchewan is the leading place for nuclear/uranium, the “Canadian Centre of Nuclear Studies”.

Feb 27, 2009  “Work on disposing of radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain (Nevada) has all but stopped after President Barack Obama’s budget blueprint.  The move remains in line with Obama’s pre-election statements that Yucca Mountain was “not an option.”  America must now set a new course for long-term management of high-level radioactive waste, ….

“Obama’s position on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which would see a community of countries share nuclear power technology with leading nations storing all the high-level waste from the entire group…

“Modern long-term strategies usually involve a step-wise reversible process that starts with an invitation to communities nationwide to express interest.”

(Precisely the process that is being used by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) in Canada.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = ==

(8)  KNOW WHAT TO ASK

In addition to the suggestions in item #5, Mark offers this:

a.  Plutonium.  The official document does not mention reprocessing of spent fuel taken from the repository after 50-60 years – but we know this to be the intention of the nuclear industry, as it is the only way that they can secure a longterm future for themselves.  We should be clear that we find this unacceptable because of (i) weapons proliferation risk, (ii) added contaminant leakage risks.  I suggest that, rather than calling it reprocessing (let alone recycling, as the industry has begun to do recently), we call it plutonium recovery, because that makes it clearer what it is.

b.   Indigenous rights.  Specifically, an acceptable consultation process does not include bribes and it does not include blackmail.  And the “information” should not come exclusively from the industry – opponents of the proposal should receive sufficient funding to put their case.

c. Transportation risk.  All of the communities through which nuclear waste would be transported should be specifically consulted as to whether they find the risk acceptable.  Again, no bribes, no blackmail, no pro-industry bias.

d.  Why Saskatchewan?  This waste comes from “central” and eastern Canada, mostly from Ontario.  We can see no good reason why it should be given a home by communities in Saskatchewan, which has not benefitted from the electrical generation of which it is a by-product.

e.  Why Canada?  What guarantee is there that waste would not also come from still further afield?

f.  Jurisdiction.  As it is not just the “host community” that would be affected, decisions should be taken at a provincial as well as a local level.

g.  Turn off the tap!  The stuff has got to go somewhere, but first put an end to the production of more of it.

I think anyone going to the NWMO Public Meetings should try to get round to reading Gordon Edwards’ paper on the subject (http://www.ccnr.org/follow_path_back.pdf  ): it explains the process well, and the fact that it’s a few years old doesn’t matter overmuch.

atb

Mark

= == = = = = = =  = = = = = = = =

(9)  STEFANIA’S RESPONSE TO “90% OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE CAN BE RECYCLED”

From: Stefania  To: Bill

Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009 4:28 pm

I reviewed the video which you so kindly forwarded to me.  However, my scepticism remains intact because their reference to 90% recycling is rather misleading; they are referring to being able to reclaim 90% of the uranium oxide that is left in the spent fuel bundle for re-use in reactors.

However, they skillfully avoided addressing the issue of the fission products which are the real danger in the spent fuel and will continue to present the physical, radiological and toxic risk to any and all living things which they encounter/ expose themselves to for the next 250,000 plus years.

The fission products created in a nuclear reactor by the splitting of the uranium atom are the same fission products created when a nuclear bomb explodes.  The radiological hazards last 10 times as long as the half-life of any radioactive isotope.  Thus, for example plutonium has a half life of 25,000 years and it presents a radiological and toxic risk for 250,000 years.  Other fission products have shorter or longer half lives.

The other item missing from the video is the nature of the wastes remaining from the “recycling” process.  In France they currently “recycle” spent fuel bundles/waste in order to extract plutonium for their nuclear weapons and for the plutonium breeder reactors.

The wastes from this process are in liquid form and in a greater volume than the original spent fuel bundles.  According to various sources the liquid wastes are more difficult to manage than the original spent fuel bundles and they contain the equally dangerous fission products plus acids from the recycling process.  Spills and contamination hazards tend to multiply when the wastes are in liquid form.

The process employed by the US lab is more properly referred to as uranium fuel extraction than recycling.

I will forward the video to Dr. Gordon Edwards in Montreal who is an expert on such matters and ask for his assessment as well.

—– Original Message (to Stefania)  —–

I had mentioned a process that can potentially recycle 90% of nuclear waste. Please see links below

*Video excerpt:*    Please follow link here   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlmp96q9DQI.

*Original bulletin*: Sustainable Nuclear Energy.pdf   (Link no longer valid  http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/open_house/sustainable_nuclear_energy.pdf )

*Organization:*     Argonne National Laboratory  <http://www.anl.gov/  (US Government)

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

(10)  HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN NORTH AMERICA, WHAT IN INDIA?

“India has 17 functional nuclear reactors and five are near completion.”  Bangladesh Times.

http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/10/19/news0150.htm

EXCERPT:  (just the health part)

“In India, health hazards from nuclear power plants have always been swept under the carpet. In 2007, physicist V Pugazhendhi of the Doctors for Safer Environment released a study on the incidence of autoimmune thyroid disease among women in and around Kalpakkam, where the prototype fast reactor is under construction. It showed the disease affected 24 per cent women within a radius of 5 km from the plant. It reduced to 6 per cent within a 40 km radius and to 0.8 per cent in 400 km. . . .

The reprocessing plant at the site segregates the spent fuel into plutonium and uranium, and radioactive waste is diluted for disposal in the sea. A retired nuclear scientist from Kalpakkam, requesting anonymity, said uranium and plutonium, which need to be stored in secure underground repositories, are kept in temporary surface facilities at the site. Health surveys conducted by physicist Surendra Gadekar between 1989 and 1991 at the Rawatbhata nuclear plant in Rajasthan showed high incidence of tumours, miscarriages, still births and congenital diseases. DAE denies radiation from nuclear plants is affecting people’s health.”

From email sent Nov 29:

November 29, 2009.  “Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada signs a nuclear co-operation agreement with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan as way to trade uranium and nuclear technology with India”  . . .  on whose behalf?

(Link no longer valid  http://trak.in/news/india-canada-clinch-nuclear-deal/29084/)

“. . .  The deal is likely to be signed when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh goes to Canada to attend the G20 summit in June next year where he will also hold bilateral talks with the Canadian leader (Stephen Harper) on the sidelines.” . . .

“The minority government will require the support of parliament members from one opposition party in order to pass the agreement.”

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

(11)  THE ROAD BACK TO COMMON SENSE, SHARED KNOWLEDGE

I said item #11 ” is an aid to understanding the false foundation upon which the NWMO meetings are presented.  There is no context, no memory, no experience factored in.”

We have a corporate sales job, inappropriate for sound decision-making.

We have to figure out why things are going wrong, in order to transition to something that serves us better.

I don’t know “how not to go wrong”!  But we can figure out SOME of it, at least.  With help from each other and thought-ful people (like John Ralston Saul).

I sometimes talk about using “common sense” but every time I write it, I am uncomfortable because I don’t really know what common sense means, how I can legitimately lay claim to knowing what it is.

A phrase I’ve used much more frequently than “common sense” is “the commons”. It never occurred to me that the two might be related, in spite of coming to the realization that “the commons” includes our knowledge base.

Through working with you in this network I developed a better understanding of “sustainability” and the necessity for “protection of “The Commons””.  It became evident that our knowledge base is a critical part of “The Commons” and it too, has to be protected if we are to transition to a way of life that the planet can support in the long term, for our grand children’s children.

We share and are collectively responsible for The Commons.  You might understand my delight when John Ralston Saul’s 2004 book, “On Equilibrium, Six Qualities of the New Humanism” made the connection between common sense and “the commons”, specifically the knowledge commons.

Ralston Saul’s insights are helpful to our work, to understanding the WHY of our dilemma.

I haven’t time to weave it together just now (it’s more important to get people out to the high-level radioactive waste disposal meetings)!  Some quotes from “On Equilibrium” will have to do for now.

(NOTE:  “Plain text” doesn’t come with italicized print.  I translated italicized words into capitalized letters.)

Page 6:  “talents and characteristics .. The unpredictable way in which these things have been ‘handed out’ to us, the unexpected places in which they appear, produce a remarkable mixture of individuals; one which cuts wildly across all lines of class, geography, race, even education.  This is precisely what creates the richness of any society.  And being able to tap into all of this becomes the great test for a successful citizenry.  That is part of the strength of any more or less democratic and egalitarian civilization.  Because its legitimacy is based in the citizenry, it can give itself access to as great a percentage of these talents as its efforts can manage.

And so the disordered, messy, inefficient world of democracy can release a surprising percentage of society’s genius. A meritocracy, on the other hand, is so busy concentrating on efficiently identifying who is the best and pushing him to the fore that it shuts down its confidence in the rest of us – those of us who are turning our door-handles (INSERT: going outside) and willing to contribute, each in her own way and at her own level. The whole idea of a society of winners – a place known above all for its best – leads with surprising speed to a narrow pyramidal social structure.  And then to division and widespread passivity.  This in turn leads to false populism and mediocrity; to a world obsessed by bread and circuses, Heroes and the need for leadership.”

Page 7 – 8:  ” There could then be no society.  Only a utilitarian contract between specialist groups and a Manichean (INSERT: things are either good or evil) division of the whole, with each side claiming the truth on each particular issue.  What holds them together?  The answer over the last two centuries has been a gradual move towards a civilization of structure and form over one of content and consideration.  The way we come at every question is structural, managerial.

Much of the last two decades has been taken up by precisely this view.  The idea, for example, that we are driven by self-interest is the natural outcome of believing in competing certainties. (INSERT: ideologies)  And so the greedy are simply one version of self-interest, the benevolent another.  Everything is self-interest.  The only difference is what separates our idea of our own interest.  The very idea of society seems to slip away, so that even those who struggle for the greater good – whatever their particular view of it might be – do so free of society and on their own group’s tangential path.  Society, they feel, slows them down in their quest for great solutions to the problems that interest them.

Take a very specific example.  In 1997 the World Trade Organization ruled that the Europeans were wrong to ban American beef raised with hormones because there was no convincing scientific case that the hormones represented a health risk.  Put aside what you might think about hormones and beef.  The central question is elsewhere.

It begins with an absolute certainty:  that social policy in a democracy must be based not on popular will – the legitimacy of the citizenry – but on proof;  in this case scientific proof.  In other words, that our choice must be based on science.  But in fact the science in question is not exactly science because it is limited by an initial question formulated in the context of commercial interest.  In other words, food should be considered first as a commercial object, second a scientific object and only third a matter of social, health, cultural or, indeed of personal choice.

Hormones or no hormones.  Health or sickness, sickness or health.  The question on both sides is commercially constructed.  . . . .  This is curious.  We know that the central question ought to be social.  That is part of our shared knowledge – our common sense.  … “[Human] nature has this principal property: that of being social” …

But a choice without a context is not choice.  How can we be judged on our actions when the options are presented without memory, without an ethical foundation, without the opportunity of imagining a broader uncertainty?

It is as if we believe that power creates all relationships.  …

Page 19.  “What is common sense if not shared knowledge?

It is not understanding.  Many may find this a difficult idea to accept – that we can know something we don’t understand.  Not only can we know it, we can use the knowledge.  We must simply be careful not to slip into superstition.  . . .  Shared knowledge or common sense lies at the core of any successful society.

In fact the importance of our ability to use it (common sense) continues to grow as that of structure and technology grows.  Why?  Because these structures interfere with our ability to use our common sense.  They are linear, interested in control, essentially simplistic.  Common sense is essentially complex, lateral and disinterested.

It demands a very unusual form of intellectual concentration during which the implications or reality are digested.  This is not analytic.  It is tied to our sense of society – our sense that society exists.

Page 20:  (re Australian history):  “Thanks to the farmers’ energies and support, the movement succeeded in 1848.  There is a revealing detail here.  They were obsessed by the need for public education, a very expensive service.  And their obsession was not primarily to train their children to make money.  Their desire was to equip them to participate as citizens in their society.  Self-interest and wealth would follow behind.   . .

Perhaps shared knowledge is the relationship which carries us above self-interest. …

Economic forces must take their appropriate place as dependents of humans; more precisely, as dependent upon human characteristics in order to be shaped appropriately to our circumstances. …

What history tells us is that economics – commercial activity, production, trade – usually falls in importance about halfway down the list of human activities, far off the radar screen of our desire for society.  So the complexity of shared knowledge reminds us that, if one globalization model claims to be the voice of inevitable forces, a dozen other models will appear which don’t.  If humans deal with their superstitions and ideologies in an unpanicked manner, then the sensible not-inevitable models will predominate in the long run.  All of this is tied to common sense as shared knowledge.

Page 23 – 24:  So long as we accept the idea of self-evident and therefore inevitable truths – for example, that we are driven by self-interest or that technology leads society – our passivity will prepare us for ideological manipulation.

(INSERT:  I relate ideology to “black-white”, “my way or the highway”, “there is no other way” which leads to the inevitability, for example of “globalization”.  The body of doctrine, myth of some political idea, along with the procedures for putting it into operation. The ideologue cannot see past the ideology to acknowledge bad outcomes.  There are no alternatives.)

Look at the interpretation of individualism common today:  our successful assertion of our identity is to be measured by our ability to distance ourselves from commitment to society.  There is no denying that it is a tempting idea – that each one of us could fulfil ourselves by walking away from the others.  This tantalizing thought has always been with us one way or another … We need a percentage who stand on the outside.  But if all of us, one by one, walked away, the whole would collapse.  Society does not exist in the abstract.  Our shared knowledge exists as a continuation of citizens and their recognition of the OTHER.  . . .

Page 25 – 26:  “And so this sense is something we hold in common.  It is shared, which does not make it ordinary.  There is no such thing as “plain common sense”. …

Common sense as a quality does not lie in self-evident truths or plain self-evidence or the citizens’ backwoods’ sharp eye seeing through the sophisticate’s double-talk.  These approaches merely undermine the importance of ‘shared knowledge’ as a characteristic of all societies and therefore of healthy, responsible individualism.  …

The very idea of plain common sense has become a crutch for pretensions of self-evidence and inevitability.  (INSERT:  the road to “ideological manipulation”)

The partial answer is that we must try to see common sense in the context of our other qualities.  In those mirrors, it will take on its real shape.  And so there is instinct, which does have an element about it of the common man’s sharp eye.  There is our sweep of memory, which reminds us of what shared knowledge has meant and can mean.  There is reason, which provides a counterweight of conscious analysis.  Imagination, which allows us to give shapes to what we are not certain we know.  Ethics, which can protect us from destructive conclusions. …”

Page 28:  “democracy only exists as a reality inside the nation-state.  That is not an accident.  Democracy is an expression of calm, long-term relationships between people.  It is an expression of shared knowledge.  So if the nation-state is dead or dying, so is democracy.

Page 37:  “.. the voice of the democratically structured common good, instead of evoking real choice and real internal public debate, has slowly fallen into the error of worshipping and defending the smooth inevitable truths of expert public management, as if this were the core of public policy. ”

Page 45:  “Our experience over the last quarter century – for example, in repeated environmental crises – suggests that Vico was right.  Highly professional, indeed experienced understanding has been used repeatedly to justify increasingly destructive behavior.  The tendency is to break reality down into a multitude of factors and then to make decisions on the basis of one or two of these factors at a time, without asking basic questions about the whole.”

(INSERT:  the reaction of the University to the need for wholistic approaches is to laud the “multi-disciplinary approach”. BUT the multi-disciplinary approach in a corporate model still undermines the public interest.  The words become rhetoric or propaganda, nothing more than a sales pitch.)

… “the practical effect of common sense is best described as prudence.  To take care is neither conservative nor radical.  It is a form of consciousness – conscious that we are part of SOMETHING which precedes us and, if we are prudent, will follow in as good or a better state.  We are both reliant upon it and indebted to it.”

Page 46:  “prudence “… is the power to anticipate experience by means of the recollection of what has gone before”.”  (INSERT:  Memory and experience.)

Page 47:  “Insanity is the loss of our sense of the OTHER.”

2009-12 Bayer to pay two American rice farmers $1 million each for losses from Bayer’s GM rice.

 Food, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Dec 012009
 

COURT AWARD:  BAYER TO PAY TWO AMERICAN RICE FARMERS $1 MILLION EACH FOR LOSSES ARISING OUT BAYER’S GM RICE.  MORE TO COME?

 “In December 2009 Bayer was sentenced to pay about $2 million for losses sustained by two US farmers. The verdict of the federal court in St. Louis is seen as a test run for up to 3000 cases brought by other rice farmers in the US.”

Excerpt from EU urged not to approve Bayer’s GM Rice 

See  the  launching of the law suit.

2009-11-29 NUKE 2. Panel decision – more Govt funding for the industry. Medical isotopes. Hyperion. Small reactors. UDP. University of Saskatchewan.

 Nuclear  No Responses »
Nov 292009
 

(1)  NOVEMBER 30TH DECISION BY EXPERT REVIEW PANEL IS ABOUT GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR THE NUCLEAR/URANIUM INDUSTRY.  IT IS NOT ABOUT “MEDICAL ISOTOPES”.

The decision from the Expert Review Panel (scheduled for Monday November 30, 2009) to determine who will receive our tax dollars is understood IN CONTEXT.  It is not about radioactive isotope production for our health and prosperity.

The Federal Government puts up money for medical isotope production.  In this example, the University jointly with the Government of Saskatchewan (Crown Investments Corporation) applies for the money.

Premier Brad Wall spelt out in March 2008:  (http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=eb5b2b4d-77d3-41d1-b060-18c6c9ca9c44 ;  copied at   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=6340):

“Premier Brad Wall said Thursday he envisions an ambitious project involving the federal government, SaskPower and one of the uranium companies located in the province that would see Saskatchewan playing a lead role in the research and development of nuclear power.

Speaking to reporters, Wall said he had a lengthy discussion with Stephen Harper when the prime minister was in Saskatchewan this week about a federal investment in the province involving the nuclear industry.

The premier said it’s linked to the Conservative government’s recent budget commitment of $300 million to the federal Crown Corporation Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., in part for its development of the next generation Canadian nuclear reactor.

“What we’ve simply said to the federal government is that if they’re looking to develop a new generation of reactor technology and are prepared to invest in that as a federal government, perhaps there is a P3 (public-private partnership) opportunity here between two levels of government. We have a Crown-owned electrical utility, the federal government and uranium companies that might be interested that are located here,” said Wall.”

It’s a concern for all Canadians because you (we) are the enablers, the funders.  We will be funding more than an “isotope” project and will continue paying in more than one way.  Do you want to do that?  Make a conscious decision because it’s critical to our longterm well-being.

Piece together the information in the public record.  In this radioactive isotopes example we need to understand how things COULD come together, if we don’t connect to broaden our community.  You will see from the CHRONOLOGY in the next posting that the issue is no small matter.

Many thanks to Doug for the analogy of the salesman.   The salesman gets his foot-in-the-door with a “reactor for medical isotopes”.   By the time he leaves we’re signed up for very expensive power production and transmission lines, taking all his decades of accumulated waste from the whole continent, paying his research and development costs.

. . .  man!  He’s the guy who moves in and leaves you thoroughly bankrupt in the end.  And what matter?!  He’s been sucking you dry and padding his bank account all the while.

The evidence in the public record on the nuclear/uranium question is pretty clear.  Here in Saskatchewan it is nothing more than a replay of the hog barns.  Or a replay of Canada selling asbestos to third world countries when we’re spending a fortune pulling it out of buildings here because of its known health hazards.  (Stephen Harper selling reactors and the building blocks for nuclear bombs to India, etc.)

There is betrayal of us by some people at the University and by some officials in Government. .. No!

It is betrayal of ourselves by ourselves.  For  can you tell me one thing that prevents us from reading, from reflecting, from understanding, from talking with each other, from small actions to make it right, as simple as talking and sharing information with other people?

It is our choice to be victimized or not to be victims.  It takes effort, hard work not to play the victim role.

So here we go again with the nuclear industry.

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

(2)  FIT THE PIECES TOGETHER.  EQUATIONS.

The “pieces” that create the larger picture of what is happening are in the chronology (see the next posting).   The public record from which “the pieces” are taken follows the chronology, in case you think I’m dreaming.  Space dictates that not everything be included!

I fit the pieces together using equations which is kind of fun.  You can add your own:

If you read the Government’s UDP (Uranium Development Partnership) plan you find a set of operations.

If you read about the University of Saskatchewan’s Canadian Nuclear Studies Centre you find a set of operations.

The UDP plan and the Canadian Nuclear Studies Centre happen to have the same set of operations, expressed as:

UDP PLAN:   Nuclear power production + radioactive waste disposal + exploration and mining    =

CANADIAN NUCLEAR STUDIES CENTRE:   Nuclear power production + radioactive waste disposal + exploration and mining

Which reduces to:

Govt UDP plan   =   U of S Nuclear Studies Centre

All of which, of course, is equal to the Nuclear/uranium corporations’ plans, so we have:

Government = University = Nuclear/uranium Corporate plans

The Government Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) Panel recommended that Saskatchewan develop nuclear power and create a nuclear waste dump.  The Report says:     “the economics of a stand-alone isotope reactor are not attractive”

Equation for this:   radioactive isotopes = zero

a reactor to do research and development that “is synergetic” with the larger nuclear expansion plan “may also be used to produce medical isotopes…to partly offset the cost of developing and operating the reactor.”

It suggests this “could justify further funding from federal authorities.”

(radioactive isotopes = red herring  ??)

The University and the Government of Saskatchewan applied for federal funding under a call for interest by the Federal Government.  This was after Brad Wall and Stephen Harper had a lengthy discussion.

The equation becomes:

Federal Govt = Govt of Sask UDP plan = U of S Nuclear Studies Centre = Nuclear/uranium Corporate plans

The Federal Govt call for interest, as presented, is in the PRODUCTION OF RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES.

But the application from the University and the Government of Sask is:

“recommending establishing a national nuclear studies centre of excellence at the university. .. will include building a nuclear research reactor for both isotope production and neutron science.”  “Targets 2016 for reactor to be online”

The equation for this would be:

Radio isotopes   IS NOT EQUAL TO  radio isotopes because they really are zero or insignificant.

So, to maintain the equation, subtract radio isotopes from both sides:

Federal Money (minus radio isotopes) = U of S Nuclear Studies Centre  = Radio isotopes +  Nuclear power production + radioactive waste disposal + exploration and mining (minus radio isotopes)  which reduces to:

Federal Money = U of S Nuclear Studies Centre  = Nuclear/uranium Corporate interest.    Let’s just cut the B.S.

The Nuclear/uranium corporations’ plans are being put into operation through the University, with no regard to the emphatic “no” stated through the public consultation process.

We’re paying for it, and in ways that most tax-payers don’t know about.  (See Howard Woodhouse’s “Selling Out,  Academic Freedom and the Corporate Market”, page 165, for the amount of Canadian tax-payers’ money that goes into the corporate coffers through the University.  Corporate donations to the University are paltry in comparison; it is a cheap selling off of the public interest at the University to corporate, privatized profits.)

So the University and the Government of Saskatchewan (through the Crown Investments Corporation – – oh oh!  another whiff of hogs)  applied to get a whack of Federal Government money.  The decision of the Expert Panel that decides the appropriation of the money, is to be known on November 30th.

There are numerous other equations.  They add in the U.S. Department of Energy and their “National Laboratories” with focus on nuclear energy and its soulmate tar sands.

You will see the actualized “integration” (takeover), the “SPP” agenda, in the following information.   As pointed out, it is information from the public record, nothing I have imagined.

In the meantime, the Salesmen for the Industry, Stephen Harper and Brad Wall, are off selling – Harper in India and Wall in Washington as you will see.

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

3)  BEFORE GETTING INTO THE DISCUSSION, UNDERSTAND “SMALL REACTORS”

Toshiba (Japan) in conjunction with Westinghouse is developing “small” nuclear reactor technology.

Hyperion is a U.S. corporation that is doing the same thing.  By googling “small reactors” you will see mining companies’ (including uranium and tar sands) interest in “small” nuclear reactors and the progress of the nuclear industry in getting them licensed.  The following article makes clear the need of the oil and gas corporations for small reactors in the tar sands.  “It was really created .. for the tar sands.”

When Brad Wall talks about “small research reactors”, I believe he is talking about “research in small reactors”.  There is a difference.  When the University and the Government (through Crown Investments Corporation) make an application to Stephen Harper (August 2009) for a small reactor that is to be online by 2016, common sense tells me that they can’t develop a small reactor by 2016.  They will be importing and modifying the Hyperion small reactor (see the following news article).

The agreements of both the Governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan with the Idaho National Laboratory (a nuclear laboratory), “the marriage made in heaven”, the inclusion of the Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee in the decision on Canadian Federal Government funding that is due November 30th are important to understanding the bigger picture.  The national laboratories are part of the U.S. Department of Energy.  More on those agreements later.

THE NEWS ARTICLE ON “SMALL REACTORS”:

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/561553

Jan 5, 2009,  EXCERPT:

Hyperion Power Generation Inc. has developed a garden shed-sized nuclear reactor . . .

Hyperion, which calls its reactor as a “nuclear battery,” licensed the technology from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. It plans to sell the reactor for about $30 million (U.S.) and says there’s potential to sell 4,000 of them around the world by 2025. . . .

The idea is that oil-sands developers, which rely heavily on electricity and steam to mine and upgrade bitumen, could purchase and operate their own Hyperion nuclear reactors as a way to virtually eliminate their controversial dependence on natural gas – that is, the use of a relatively “clean” fossil fuel as a way to extract and process one of the dirtiest fossil fuels.

“It was really created for the Alberta (INSERT:  and Saskatchewan) tar sands… we have strong interest there,” says Deborah Blackwell, vice-president of licensing and public affairs at Hyperion. “

Okay, knowing about “small reactors” we can move on to the CHRONOLOGY, but after a couple brief reminders.

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

(4) REMEMBER THE KILLING OF THE NORTH, IT IS PART OF THE CONTEXT

The nuclear reactors (whether at the University of Saskatchewan or elsewhere in Alberta) are for tar sands expansion and privatization of electricity.

We pay the big costs:  the acidification (slow death) of northern Saskatchewan from acid rain (sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide from tar sands),  the high power transmission lines that will take a portion of the electricity to lucrative markets in the western U.S. where hydro-electric capability has a 50/50 chance of being gone by 2017 because the water resource in the Colorado River is being depleted without conscience.

They run around the globe exploiting other people’s water supplies, clean air and natural resources.  They leave when the destruction is complete.  That is well documented and also part of the context in which this Federal money for “isotope reactors” falls.

We just happen to be next in line.

To understand what is happening in Canada (the “petro-state” or appropriation of resources) (not bombs as in Iraq) it would be very helpful to re-introduce the word “quisling” into our vocabulary.

= = = = = = = = = = == =  == = = =

(5)  BRUCE POWER’S ROLE SPELLED OUT

This is part of the “how” and knowing the actors.

(From item #7,  “BRAD WALL SAYS HE HAS BIG PLANS FOR NUCLEAR POWER IN SASKATCHEWAN, MARCH 2008”)

“ . . . Cameco spokesman Lyle Krahn said the company is expanding its operations in uranium refining and enrichment.

However, the company’s involvement with nuclear generation is through Bruce Power, a consortium in which it is a partner. Bruce Power uses AECL’s Candu technology for its reactors.

“The premier is certainly supportive of our industry and he’s looking for opportunities,” said Krahn when told of Wall’s comments.

“From our perspective … we would use Bruce Power as the vehicle for investment in nuclear power generation in Canada.”

– – – – – – – —

The next posting contains the CHRONOLOGY.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries