Sandra Finley

Jul 252009
 

the most genes artificially added to a single plant was three, but Smartstax includes eight

These are eight poisons built into the genome of the corn.   Genes do not wash off.

 

QUICK, QUIET GENETIC CORN APPROVAL BY THE CFIA

To see the CFIA documentation on the approval for Smartstax corn, go to:  2013-05-28  Dismay when people realize connection between GMO corn and tacos, tortillas, corn chips (corn meal).

Earlier, on corn see:  2004-06-14   Another big hit – $112 million pay out over Contamination of Corn (Aventis StarLink corn)

 

We’ve done a lot of work on GMO crops, our food supply.

This recent development made me so mad I phoned Carole Swan, President of the CFIA and gave them a piece of my mind.

I later talked with Lucy Sharratt who is dedicated to GMO’s at CBAN (Canadian Biotechnology Action Network).  Numbers of other people have phoned Carole Swan.  Lucy’s reading on the situation is that the CFIA is getting nervous.  I am sure that a phone call from you will add to their nervousness:

Carole Swan

President of the CFIA

(613) 773-6000

swanc@inspection.gc.ca

(613) 773-5762

Sherry – Exec Asst

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

“SMARTSTAX” CORN

Smartstax corn was approved on the same day in Canada, as in the U.S.   Which is to say that the “harmonization” of regulation that the industry has been working on is now in place.  (Canada established an independent approval process after the IBT Laboratory Scandals in the U.S. in the 1980s.  Monsanto played a role.  By 2009 they have effectively removed the “independent” approval system in Canada.)

From Wikipedia – info obviously from Monsanto/Dow themselves.:

SmartStax is a brand of genetically modified seed made through a collaboration between Monsanto Company and Dow.[1] It takes advantage of multiple modes of insect protection and herbicide tolerance. SmartStax takes advantage of Yieldgard VT Triple (Monsanto), Herculex Xtra (Dow), RoundUp Ready 2 (Monsanto), and Liberty Link (Dow). The traits included protect against above-ground insects, Below-Ground insects, and provide broad herbicide tolerance. It is currently available for corn, but cotton, soybean, and specialty crop variations are to be released. Previously, the most genes artificially added to a single plant was three, but Smartstax includes eight. Smartstax also takes advantage of the Acceleron Seed Treatment System which protects against insects at the earliest stages of development. SmartStax is ground-breaking in that it requires only 5% refuge acres as opposed to the 20% required of older technologies. Smartstax builds towards Monsanto’s Promise of doubling yields by 2030 on the same or less land.[2] Smartstax is sold under the Genuity (Monsanto) and Mycogen (Dow) brands.

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = =

Quick, quiet genetic corn approval questioned

By Michelle Lalonde

Montreal Gazette via Canwest News Service

July 25, 2009

MONTREAL — The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has quietly approved a new genetically engineered corn with eight different insect- and weed-fighting traits, but farmer and environmental groups in Canada say the approval was rushed and environmental risks ignored.

Developed through a research agreement between Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, SmartStax corn is unique in that it “stacks” eight different genetically engineered traits that will allow corn to tolerate certain weed- and insect-killing products made by the two companies.

Each of the eight traits has been individually approved by the CFIA, but opponents are concerned there might be unintended consequences when the traits are combined.

“You’d think that a combination of eight GE traits would trigger an environmental assessment, but the CFIA has (provided) no public record of their evaluation,” said Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

The CFIA has also conditionally authorized for SmartStax a reduction in the size of the buffer zone, or “refuge,” normally required around genetically engineered corn.

Farmers who grow insect-resistant corn have to plant regular corn around it in an area equal to 20 per cent of the GE cornfield. This is to delay the evolution of insect resistance to the toxins in the GE corn, which would then necessitate the use of stronger pesticides.

CFIA officials were not available for comment Friday. A short statement on its website said “the CFIA has evaluated the potential impact on and risk to the environment of using a 5 per cent non-Bt refuge strategy for this product, and has concluded that a conditional authorization until Dec. 31, 2012, of the use of this refuge poses minimal risk to the environment.”

“Not only did the CFIA neglect to do a risk evaluation for SmartStax corn, but it has also seriously reduced one of the only precautions imposed on farmers,” said Benoit Girouard of Quebec’s Union Paysanne, a farmers’ group.

Between now and December 2012, the CFIA statement said, Monsanto and Dow are required to evaluate how insects like corn rootworm are adapting to the product.

“It’s like putting the wolf in charge of the sheep’s welfare,” said Eric Darier, director of Greenpeace Quebec.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for an immediate moratorium on genetically modified foods, saying they pose a “serious health risk.”

Jul 252009
 

Please see  2011-01-28 for a summary of  mercury poisoning from dental amalgams and vaccinations that contain ethyl mercury.

VACCINATIONS, DEADLY IMMUNITY BY ROBERT F KENNEDY JR (AUTISM) 

http://www.infowars.com/vaccinations-deadly-immunity/   

Vaccinations: Deadly Immunity

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Global Research

July 25, 2009 

In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Georgia. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session — only private invitations to fifty-two attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly “embargoed.” There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.  

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage — and even death — in both animals and humans. 

The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency’s massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines — thimerosal — appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. “I was actually stunned by what I saw,” Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants — in one case, within hours of birth — the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. “You can play with this all you want,” Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results “are statistically significant.” Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting’s first day, was even more alarmed. “My gut feeling?” he said. “Forgive this personal comment — I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.” 

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry’s bottom line. “We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits,” said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. “This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country.” Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that “given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let’s say, less responsible hands.” Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared that “perhaps this study should not have been done at all.” He added that “the research results have to be handled,” warning that the study “will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group.” 

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children’s health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to “rule out” the chemical’s link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten’s findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been “lost” and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism. 

Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants — but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines — including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to eleven-year-olds.

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government’s vaccine-related documents — including the Simpsonwood transcripts — and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the “Eli Lilly Protection Act” into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. The measure was repealed by Congress in 2003 — but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. “The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists,” says Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to Frist. 

Even many conservatives are shocked by the government’s effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed with autism. “Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic,” his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. “This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin.” The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of “institutional malfeasance for self protection” and “misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.” 

The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. I was drawn into the controversy only reluctantly. As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years working on issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met mothers of autistic children who were absolutely convinced that their kids had been injured by vaccines. Privately, I was skeptical.

I doubted that autism could be blamed on a single source, and I certainly understood the government’s need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. “Why should we scare people about immunization,” Waxman pointed out at one hearing, “until we know the facts?”

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation’s pre-eminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation — those born between 1989 and 2003 — who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. “The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological or immune-system damage,” Patti White, a school nurse, told the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. “Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in twenty-five years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children.”

More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among eleven children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.

Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase is a result of better diagnosis — a theory that seems questionable at best, given that most of the new cases of autism are clustered within a single generation of children. “If the epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis,” scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world’s authorities on mercury toxicity, “then where are all the twenty-year-old autistics?” Other researchers point out that Americans are exposed to a greater cumulative “load” of mercury than ever before, from contaminated fish to dental fillings, and suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only part of a much larger problem. It’s a concern that certainly deserves far more attention than it has received — but it overlooks the fact that the mercury concentrations in vaccines dwarf other sources of exposure to our children.

What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore — and cover up — the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines — and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children’s vaccines twenty years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

“You couldn’t even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe,” says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. “It’s just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage.”

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage — and even death — in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to twenty-two patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected — a fact Lilly didn’t bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal’s safety “did not check with ours.” Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative “unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs.”

In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it “poison.” In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly’s own studies discerned that thimerosal was “toxic to tissue cells” in concentrations as low as one part per million — 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as “nontoxic” and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, ten babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords.

In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products that contained thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency considered banning it from animal vaccines. But tragically, that same year, the CDC recommended that infants be injected with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be vaccinated for hepatitis B within twenty-four hours of birth, and two-month-old infants would be immunized for haemophilus influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a danger. The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck’s vaccine programs, warned the company that six-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, “especially when used on infants and children,” noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. “The best way to go,” he added, “is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives.”

For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they are more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced with this “cost consideration,” Merck ignored Hilleman’s warnings, and government officials continued to push more and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received eleven vaccinations — for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of twenty-two immunizations by the time they reached first grade. 

As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism among children exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million children were injected with thimerosal-based vaccines, receiving unprecedented levels of mercury during a period critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented dangers of thimerosal, it appears that no one bothered to add up the cumulative dose of mercury that children would receive from the mandated vaccines. “What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?” Peter Patriarca, director of viral products for the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in 1999. “Why didn’t CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?” 

But by that time, the damage was done. At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, infants routinely received three inoculations that contained a total of 62.5 micrograms of ethylmercury — a level 99 times greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies — including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health — suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury. 

Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist that the additional vaccines were necessary to protect infants from disease and that thimerosal is still essential in developing nations, which, they often claim, cannot afford the single-dose vials that don’t require a preservative. Dr. Paul Offit, one of CDC’s top vaccine advisers, told me, “I think if we really have an influenza pandemic — and certainly we will in the next twenty years, because we always do — there’s no way on God’s earth that we immunize 280 million people with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials.” 

But while public-health officials may have been well-intentioned, many of those on the CDC advisory committee who backed the additional vaccines had close ties to the industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee’s chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was part of a team that developed the measles vaccine and brought it to licensure in 1963. Dr. Neal Halsey, another committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine. 

Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton says that the CDC “routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines,” even though they have “interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight.” The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisers who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine “had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.” 

Offit, who shares a patent on one of the vaccines, acknowledged to me that he “would make money” if his vote eventually leads to a marketable product. But he dismissed my suggestion that a scientist’s direct financial stake in CDC approval might bias his judgment. “It provides no conflict for me,” he insists. “I have simply been informed by the process, not corrupted by it. When I sat around that table, my sole intent was trying to make recommendations that best benefited the children in this country. It’s offensive to say that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of industry and thus are making decisions that they know are unsafe for children. It’s just not the way it works.” 

Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar assurances. Like Offit, they view themselves as enlightened guardians of children’s health, proud of their “partnerships” with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational activists whose anti-vaccine campaigns are endangering children’s health. They are often resentful of questioning. “Science,” says Offit, “is best left to scientists.” 

Still, some government officials were alarmed by the apparent conflicts of interest. In his e-mail to CDC administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. “I’m not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now,” Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, “will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use” of thimerosal in child vaccines. 

If federal regulators and government scientists failed to grasp the potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no one could claim ignorance after the secret meeting at Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines — which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense — over to a private agency, America’s Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC “wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe,” Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. “We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect” of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee’s chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was “inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation” between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result “Walt wants” — a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC. 

For those who had devoted their lives to promoting vaccination, the revelations about thimerosal threatened to undermine everything they had worked for. “We’ve got a dragon by the tail here,” said Dr. Michael Kaback, another committee member. “The more negative that [our] presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination, immunization — and we know what the results of that will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of the trap, I think is the charge.” 

Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. “Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal,” Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. “In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety.” Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal’s risks. 

In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and — in a startling position for a scientific body — recommended that no further research be conducted. 

The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were “fatally flawed” by “poor design” and failed to represent “all the available scientific and medical research.” CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because “an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?” 

Under pressure from Congress and parents, the Institute of Medicine convened another panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program. In February, the new panel, composed of different scientists, criticized the way the VSD had been used in the Verstraeten study, and urged the CDC to make its vaccine database available to the public. 

So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain access. Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetics Center of America, and his son, David, spent a year battling to obtain the medical records from the CDC. Since August 2002, when members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the data, the Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate a powerful correlation between thimerosal and neurological damage in children. One study, which compares the cumulative dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 and 1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a “very significant relationship” between autism and vaccines. Another study of educational performance found that kids who received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more than three times as likely to suffer from speech disorders and mental retardation. Another soon-to-be published study shows that autism rates are in decline following the recent elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines. 

As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from studying vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link to autism. In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines — the kind of population that scientists typically use as a “control” in experiments — Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three — including one child adopted from outside the Amish community — had received their vaccines.

At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-depth reviews of thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine was busy whitewashing the risks, the Iowa legislature was carefully combing through all of the available scientific and biological data. “After three years of review, I became convinced there was sufficient credible research to show a link between mercury and the increased incidences in autism,” says state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a Republican who oversaw the investigation. “The fact that Iowa’s 700 percent increase in autism began in the 1990s, right after more and more vaccines were added to the children’s vaccine schedules, is solid evidence alone.” Last year, Iowa became the first state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by California. Similar bans are now under consideration in thirty-two other states.

But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow manufacturers to include thimerosal in scores of over-the-counter medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. Even more alarming, the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries — some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological disorders “under review.” 

I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine. “The CDC is guilty of incompetence and gross negligence,” says Mark Blaxill, vice president of Safe Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in medicines. “The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It’s bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you’ve ever seen.”

It’s hard to calculate the damage to our country — and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases — if Third World nations come to believe that America’s most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It’s not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America’s enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers — many of them sincere, even idealistic — who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world’s poorest populations. 

Global Research comments: This story has been updated to correct several inaccuracies in the original, published version. As originally reported, American preschoolers received only three vaccinations before 1989, but the article failed to note that they were innoculated a total of eleven times with those vaccines, including boosters. The article also misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms – an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. Finally, because of an editing error, the article misstated the contents of the rotavirus vaccine approved by the CDC. It did not contain thimerosal. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors. 

An earlier version of this story stated that the Institute of Medicine convened a second panel to review the work of the Immunization Safety Review Committee that had found no evidence of a link between thimerosal and autism. In fact, the IOM convened the second panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program, including those raised by critics of the IOM’s earlier work. But the panel was not charged with reviewing the committee’s findings. The story also inadvertently omitted a word and transposed two sentences in a quote by Dr. John Clements, and incorrectly stated that Dr. Sam Katz held a patent with Merck on the measles vaccine. In fact, Dr. Katz was part of a team that developed the vaccine and brought it to licensure, but he never held the patent. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors. 

CLARIFICATION: After publication of this story, Salon and Rolling Stone corrected an error that misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms ? an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. At the time of the correction, we were aware that the comparison itself was flawed, but as journalists we considered it more appropriate to state the correct figure rather than replace it with another number entirely. 

Since that earlier correction, however, it has become clear from responses to the article that the forty-percent number, while accurate, is misleading. It measures the total mercury load an infant received from vaccines during the first six months, calculates the daily average received based on average body weight, and then compares that number to the EPA daily limit. But infants did not receive the vaccines as a ?daily average? ? they received massive doses on a single day, through multiple shots. As the story states, these single-day doses exceeded the EPA limit by as much as 99 times. Based on the misunderstanding, and to avoid further confusion, we have amended the story to eliminate the forty-percent figure. 

Correction: The story misattributed a quote to Andy Olson, former legislative counsel to Senator Bill Frist. The comment was made by Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to the senator. Rolling Stone and Salon.com regret the error. 

Kennedy Report Sparks Controversy 

“Deadly Immunity,” our story about the link between mercury in vaccines and the dramatic rise in autism among children [RS 977/978], sparked intense reaction from the medical establishment and several leading news organizations. The story, by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — part of an ongoing collaboration with Salon.com — documented the government’s efforts to conceal alarming data about the dangers of vaccines. 

What is most striking is the lengths to which major media outlets have gone to disparage the story and to calm public fears — even in the face of the questionable science on the subject. In a segment on World News Tonight titled “A Closer Look,” ABC pointed out that Kennedy is “not a scientist or a doctor” and dismissed his extensive evidence as nothing more than “a few scientific studies.” The network also trotted out its medical editor, Dr. Timothy Johnson, to praise the “impeccably impartial Institute of Medicine” and to again state that Kennedy is not a scientist. 

The New York Times, in a front-page story on the subject, devoted only one line to Kennedy’s article, which it said accused public-health officials and drugmakers of “conspiring” to hide the data on autism — a word that our story neither used nor implied. (The Wall Street Journal, in an op-ed attacking the article, was even more misleading, using the word “conspiracy” four times.) The Times then went on, for more than a full page, to portray concerns over vaccines as nothing more than the misguided fears of parents who suffer from “scientific illiteracy,” unable to understand the medical studies that prove immunizations to be safe. It depicted studies reviewed by the Institute of Medicine as definitive without even bothering to address the host of serious questions raised about their validity: conflicting diagnoses of autism, mixed-up data from HMOs and research skewed to exclude many sick kids. 

Rolling Stone and Salon fact-checked the article thoroughly before publication, insisting on primary documentation for every statement in the story, and posted links to the most significant materials online to enable readers to judge for themselves. The final article contained six errors. These ranged from inadvertently transposing a quote and confusing a drug license for a patent to relying on a figure that incorrectly calculated an infant’s exposure to mercury over six months, rather than citing the even more dangerous amount injected on a single day. (The mistakes were corrected online as soon as they were discovered and can be viewed in detail at both RollingStone.com and Salon.com.) 

It is important to note, however, that none of the mistakes weaken the primary point of the story. The government’s own records show that it has failed to do the science necessary to put to rest reasonable concerns about vaccines. If the scientists had simply done their job rather than covering their tracks, there would be no controversy today. Instead, the government cannot even provide a definitive figure of the number of cases of autism among American children — a number obviously critical to any serious scientific investigation — and yet expects the public to believe that it has ruled out any link between vaccines and an illness it does not even track. 

“Science,” as one doctor in our story insisted, “is best left to scientists.” But when the scientists fail to do their job, resorting to closed-door meetings and rigged studies, others in society have not only a right but a moral obligation to question their work. In the coming years, further research may indeed demonstrate that mercury in vaccines is not responsible for the rise in autism. For now, though, we can only raise a very real and legitimate alarm — and hope that the government’s well-documented mishandling of its own research did not needlessly jeopardize the health of hundreds of thousands of children.

Jul 232009
 

CONTENTS 

(1)  ADRIANE CARR, SASKATOON-REGINA, AUG 5-6 (WED-THUR) ON NUCLEAR 

(2)  CANADA-U.S. WESTERN ENERGY CORRIDOR DOESN’T SAY …

(3)  LEAD-UP TO INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE MEETING IN COPENHAGEN IN DECEMBER

 (4)  BRUCE POWER WITHDRAWS APPLICATIONS FOR NEW BUILD (BRUCE C AND NANTICOKE) IN ONTARIO 

(5)  NUCLEAR ENERGY THREATENS ONTARIO’S GREEN FUTURE.  COST OF NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR DARLINGTON ESCALATES TO $26 BILLION.

Note:  There is news such as #4 & #5 coming out every day. I took these from Elaine Hughes’ Stop the Hogs, NUKE NEWS. Contact her [tybach AT sasktel.net] to subscribe, if you want a news feed that is strictly nuclear. There are high quality feeds, and it’s all provided by volunteers, at no cost. We cross-feed. /Sandra 

 ============ 

(1)  ADRIANE CARR, SPEAKING ON NUCLEAR IN SASKATOON & REGINA, AUG 5-6, WED-THUR

On the energy issue, the Green Party has always been firmly in favor of investment in conservation, renewables, and demand-side management.  Nuclear is extremely expensive among other things, and not the way to go. 

But hear what the Federal Deputy Leader has to say!  Adriane Carr will explain the Green Party policy on the nuclear question at meetings in Saskatoon and Regina.

Adriane is pretty amazing, working for the public good with her husband Paul, for three decades.  People in B.C. where she was the leader of the B.C. Greens before moving into the federal arena, know her best.  She is a close personal friend and supporter of Elizabeth May.

Wikipedia has good biographical information:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriane_Carr  

 This is a great opportunity to meet Adriane (and Paul) in person (if you’re in Saskatchewan!). 

From Deputy Leader, Green Party of Canada, Adriane Carr:

Hi Sandra – that’s a great schedule of activities!

I’ll aim to be in Saskatoon by 2 pm on Wednesday August 5th. I can take media calls prior to that.

I’d like to do some canvassing. If there are nominated candidates, I’d also like to do some street canvassing to collect signatures on their nomination papers. I’m quite comfortable talking on the nuclear energy/uranium issue. I was part of the campaigns to stop uranium mining in BC since the early 1980s.

Yours,

Adriane

(deleted section)

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

(2)  CANADA-U.S. WESTERN ENERGY CORRIDOR DOESN’T SAY … 

The following might be helpful to some of you. I used it as a hand-out at a couple of public events.  It’s important to understand the “why” behind the nuclear agenda.  And the consequences – not just the financial ones (huge public debt). If you’d like the word document, please ask – it’s formatted!

————–

 First, thanks on behalf of everyone to Cathy for her insights: 

Hi Sandra

 some quick comments. 

“a lot of money to be made” – I don’t know if that is really true. I think a more likely scenario is that nuclear will be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer and it will not be profitable. The company would operate like a P3 – with a guaranteed floor price, excess costs to be paid out of the public purse. This is in fact what Bruce Power has set up with the Ontario government. See page 7 of Cameco Corporation Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) For the period ended March 31, 2009: 

– 7 –

BPLP’s Outlook for 2009

Electricity revenue in 2009 is expected to decrease 5% to 10% over 2008 due to lower realized electricity prices compared to the 2% to 5% increase previously reported. Reduced industrial demand coupled with expanding supply and lower fossil fuel prices is expected to negatively impact electricity prices in Ontario for the remainder of 2009.

(EMPHASIZE)  However, output from the B reactors is protected by a floor price.

 Therefore, in 2009 BPLP expects to receive significant support payments from the province of Ontario under the BPLP restructuring agreement. These payments can be used to fund ongoing operations and obligations and are subject to repayment in future years in the event electricity prices increase and remain above the floor price. As a result, support payments are considered a source of financing and not revenue or cash provided by operations.  (emphasis added). 

This report is available from the SEDAR website.

 I think this distinction is strategically important. Business people often consider anything that makes money to be a good idea. If it makes money for someone there will be gravy to spread around … However if it is just going to raise taxes they will be less likely to support it. 

There is also the general “market mentality” out there that if it makes money it must be doing something right, serving a need, etc. So I think it is dangerous to assume a profit motive for the nuclear industry in the old-fashioned business sense of the word. I think they are after spoils of the tar sands industry, both in terms of public money and power.

 Second – the “green argument” – can be tricky. If you assume that the tar sands will be developed no matter what, there is an argument (boo) for using nuclear instead of natural gas for providing heat. Some people will be willing to say that we cannot get “off” oil, there is no way to stop tar sands, so let’s at least not burn up all our natural gas in the process. I think the conservation message, coupled with a quality of life message (are people happier now that they are commuting more? etc.) needs to be front and centre.

 Related to that, I think the GHG emissions of the oil and gas industry need to be separated from “residential/domestic” use in Saskatchewan. We get shamed by the stats that our per capita emissions are among the highest in the world – yet much of those emissions are due to poor regulation and enforcement of standards in oil and gas production – something as citizens we can do nothing about unless we can force the government to put in better policies.

Cathy

NOTE:  See Item 4, just received from Elaine Hughes re Bruce Power not going to build two new reactors in Ontario – reinforces statements regarding reduced demand in Ontario.

 —————               

The “largest on the planet” Canada-U.S. Western Energy Corridor, “spearheaded” by Brad Wall  

Saskatoon Star Phoenix, June 15th, 2009  Page D8.  Originated in Calgary Herald.  Also ran in Vancouver Sun. 

The article does not mention: 

a.    The symbiotic relationship between the oil companies (tar sands) and the nuclear reactor industry.

Natural gas supplies used in tar sands development are running out.  Nuclear reactors are required to provide the heat source for tar sands expansion.  The two industries enable profitability for each other.

b.    There is a lot of money to be made by a few people (at public expense of building, maintaining, de-commissioning, transmission lines, environmental and health costs, etc) if private interests can sell electricity for tar sands expansion.

But there is also a large and profitable market for electricity in the U.S. (again, if the public purse pays costs – public debt).  There is a 50/50 chance that hydro-electric power generation at the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams will disappear by 2017 because of steadily declining water levels – a water and an electricity crisis in the western U.S..  (Feb 2008 Report by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (University of California in San Diego).  A private consortium (MATL) is trying to build a high power transmission line from Lethbridge south into Montana.  Citizens are appealing through the court system to stop it.

 c.    Just the EXISTING sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions (acid rain) from tar sands production have put areas in northern Saskatchewan past critical load limits.  The plans for tar sands expansion will kill the north, just as for example, Ogoni lands in Nigeria have been destroyed by the oil companies.

 d.    The wisdom (?) of addressing the looming water (electricity) crisis in the U.S. by drawing down our own water supply.  Tar sands and nuclear production both place extra strains on our water supply, when the Rosenberg Report advises against extra loads on prairie water supplies.  The glaciers are melting;  climate-change models put the reduction in run-off in the range of 10 – 30% per year. 

 e.    The moral issue:  building nuclear reactors to expand tar sands production.  Saskatchewan’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions are among the highest on the planet.  Do we have moral obligations? (Cathy’s note ” We get shamed by the stats that our per capita emissions are among the highest in the world – yet much of those emissions are due to poor regulation and enforcement of standards in oil and gas production – something as citizens we can do nothing about unless we can force the government to put in better policies.” – Enforced Regulations.)

 f.    The beneficiaries of the destruction in Saskatchewan will be large corporate private interests.  Bruce Power means the electricity supply in Saskatchewan will have been privatized.

Lessons from history:  California Electricity Crisis, Governor Gray Davis, 2001 State of the State address. “California’s deregulation scheme is a colossal and dangerous failure.  It has not lowered consumer prices.  And it has not increased supply.  In fact, it has resulted in skyrocketing prices, price-gouging, and an unreliable supply of electricity.  In short, an energy nightmare . . .  we have lost control over our own power.  We have surrendered the decisions about where electricity is sold –  and for how much –  to private companies with only one objective:  maximizing unheard-of profits.” 

g.    Bill Boyd, Sask Minister responsible for the uranium/nuclear development, ties the “Energy Council” (legislators and energy industry representatives) to the Western Energy Corridor and to the UDP Report.  These matters are not discussed with the public and in the Legislature, but in closed meetings with industry. 

The SANE choice of:

–     Conservation and demand-side management

–     Investment in the transition to alternatives

would put us in a league with progressive jurisdictions. 

We cannot grow more water for the Colorado River so it can generate electricity,  we cannot grow more water for the North Saskatchewan River.   We cannot grow more cheap oil or even more dirty tar sands – they aren’t renewable sources.   We seem unable to grasp the fact that the future lies somewhere else. 

Because our economy is dependent upon CHEAP oil, the route that uses nuclear energy to fuel tar sands development, that DENIES we have a problem with our energy source (it’s running out), will only ensure that we have more and repeated economic crisis, in a downward and very destructive spiral.   Surely that is evident from the current economic crisis.  When the price of oil runs up to $150 a barrel, it sends shock-waves through an economy built upon $50 a barrel oil. 

 Conservation and renewables.  There is no place for expensive detours into nuclear energy that only serve to enable more “over fishing”.  We need to invest in TRANSITION OFF hydro-carbons.

 Dictionary for euphemisms in the following newspaper article:

“Non-renewable “ = tar sands options

“Clean-energy” = nuclear energy 

– – – – – – – – – – –

 THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

 Premiers, governors, promote Canada-U.S. energy corridor   –  HYPERLINK  to June 15, 2009

=================== 

 (3)  LEAD-UP TO INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE MEETING IN COPENHAGEN IN DECEMBER

 All the Canadian Premiers are meeting in Regina in August. National groups will be there, under the umbrella Climate Action Network, to exert pressure on Canadian officials to TRANSITION OFF HYDRO-CARBONS.  We (Canadians) want to do our part in the global effort to mitigate against climate change.  

PLEASE LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THE EVENTS IN REGINA, AUGUST 5 TO 7. (scroll down) WARM BODIES ARE NEEDED!  YOU ARE GUARANTEED TO HAVE FUN IN THE PROCESS~! 

—————

 July 30 – August 9th.  People will be spreading the word at the Saskatoon Fringe Festival – about Rally and Parade —  SEE Sunday October 4th. 

—————

 July 31st:  deadline for public input to UDP (Uranium Development Partnership) public consultation (Chair: Dan Perrins). Very important.  If the Sask Government proceeds with the recommendations in the UDP Report, nuclear energy will be used to fuel expansion of the tar sands – it will be a kiss of death to efforts to address climate change.  Details for making a submission to Dan Perrins are in an email I’ll send later.

 ————— 

August 5-7 Regina:  the COUNCIL OF THE FEDERATION (the meeting of the provincial premiers), Government House.

 —————

 August 5-7 Regina:  The CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK (CANet) is coordinating and organizing events. Groups include Clean Green Regina, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Federation of Labour, Council of Canadians, Pedal for the Environment (cyclist group to arrive before the Federation mtg), SES (Sask Environmental Society) and Oxfam. 

Tuesday August 4 – film night

Aug 5  – teach-in and workshops

Aug 6 – a rally at noon at the Legislature.

 August 6th  Pedal for the Planet  (GreenPeace initiative) http://kyotoplus.ca/pedal/?page_id=113

 ————— 

August  5, Wednesday, 7:30 pm  Saskatoon: 

MAYFAIR UNITED CHURCH, 902-33rd St. West.  Adriane Carr Deputy Leader Green Party of Canada, speaks on nuclear issue. 

—————

August 6, Thursday, 7:30 pm Regina:

UNITARIAN CENTRE, corner of College Ave. and Angus St – 2700 College Ave.  Adriane Carr Speaks on Nuclear Energy

—————

August 6, Thursday,  7:30,  Frances Morrison Public Library Saskatoon:    The Saskatoon Peace Coalition is sponsoring the film “The Strangest Dream”.  Michael Murphy from the Saskatoon Peace Coalition will introduce Mayor Don Atchison who will give greetings from the City of Saskatoon  You can read about it at

http://www3.nfb.ca/webextension/strangest-dream/synopsis.php

—————

August 9th, 12-4:00 St Joseph’s Church Hall (Broadway & 8th Street) Saskatoon:   Nagasaki Day event.  Our 15 minute slot (no nukes) is toward the end of the afternoon. We will have a table with info. 

—————

August 12 Pedal for the Planet in Saskatoon

—————

August 31:  UDP (Uranium Development Partnership) public consultation (Chair: Dan Perrins) report due.  Government will take a bit of time before responding.

—————

September 16-17 :  Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)  meeting in Saskatoon (believed to be at the Bessborough Hotel)

The meeting is about the siting of radioactive waste disposal for the whole continent, in northern Saskatchewan.

” The discussion document about the proposed site selection process is on www.nwmo.ca. Click on “What’s new” and you’ll find “Invitation to Review a Proposed Process for Selecting a Site”.  They are asking for public comments.

Ann

Ann Coxworth

Research Advisor

Saskatchewan Environmental Society”

 The NWMO says that the decision is up to an individual selected (poor, First Nations) community; the decision is not up to the people of the province (the Government).  Richard Florizone repeated that idea in the video-taped presentation that was shown to the Saskatchewan public during the public consultations on the UDP Report.  Saying things doesn’t make them true.

 After drilling a test hole, Manitoba passed a law a number of years ago.  They will not receive radioactive waste from other jurisdictions in Manitoba.

 The industry has been creating radioactive waste for 50 years, without any idea of how to dispose of it.  At the very least, as a minimum requirement, they must STOP producing radioactive waste until they know where it is going to go.

 —————

 Sept 19 or 26  Saturday. Tentative.  Swift Current (Brad Wall’s constituency) RALLY:  anti-nuke pro-renewable rally at constituency office.  Locally organized.

 —————

 Sept 23:  Regina  Dr. Dale Dewar speaks on The Effect of Radiation on Humans. (Clean Green Regina)

 —————

 Sept 26 Saturday Swift Current:  KAIROS (Ecumenical Church group) Annual Meeting with representatives from Alberta and national office, etc.  Prairie region of KAIROS is ally in anti-nuke pro-renewable struggle.

 —————

 PROVINCIAL BY-ELECTIONS (Regina & Saskatoon) AROUND THIS TIME, OR IN NOVEMBER

 —————

 Oct 4 Sunday, 1:00 pm in Saskatoon   Provincial RALLY AND PARADE: “no-nuke, go-renewable”

 —————

 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS IN THIS TIME PERIOD

 —————

 Oct 22, Regina:  opening day of the Legislature.   Rally on the steps of the Legislature.  What does the Speech from the Throne say about nuclear issue?  “no-nuke, go-renewable”?  OR this event will be in concert with Oct 24. 

 —————

 Oct 24 – Global Day of Climate Action.  international efforts being made to support this event (SES, Oxfam working on it.) www.350.org     

 —————

 PROVINCIAL BY-ELECTIONS (Regina & Saskatoon) AROUND THIS TIME, IF NOT IN EARLY FALL

 —————

 December 2009, the next UN Climate Change Conference, in Copenhagen

 =====================

 (4)  BRUCE POWER WITHDRAWS APPLICATIONS FOR NEW BUILD (BRUCE C AND NANTICOKE IN ONTARIO 

 From: Gordon Edwards

Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:59 AM

Background: 

Earlier, Bruce Power submitted applications to build two new reactors (each 2200 MW) at its Bruce site on Lake Huron, and also another reactor (2200 MW) at the Nanticoke site on Lake Ontario. 

In the last four years, electricity demand in the province of Ontario has been falling — to the extent that Ontario was paying clients to take the surplus electricity.  Hydropower had to be “wasted” to keep the nuclear plants running, and finally even the nuclear plants had to start being shut down due to lack of demand (Unit 8 of the Bruce B plant, 800 MW, was shut down July 17 due to lack of demand — only the second time in the history of the plant that this step has been taken.  The first time was one month earlier for similar reasons.).

 At the end of June, the government of Ontario announced that it has postponed its decision to buy new reactors because of the excessive price attached to the new build proposals.

 Gordon Edwards.

 ———–

 Bruce Power to Focus on Additional Refurbishments at Bruce A AND B

 http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/bruce-power-to-focus-on,902128.shtml

 Bruce C and Nanticoke new build applications withdrawn

 MARKETWIRE

 TIVERTON, ON – July 23, 2009 – Bruce Power will focus on the refurbishment of its remaining Bruce A and B units rather than build new reactors in Bruce County in order to supply Ontario with 6,300 megawatts of electricity.

 Bruce Power will also withdraw its application to build new reactors in Nanticoke given Ontario’s declining electricity demand. This has no impact on the current process to introduce nuclear energy to either Alberta or Saskatchewan, where both provincial governments are expected to release policy statements regarding nuclear’s role later this year.

 “These are business decisions unique to Ontario and reflect the current realities of the market,” said Duncan Hawthorne, Bruce Power’s President and Chief Executive Officer. “Our focus has always been to find the best way to provide Ontario with a long-term supply of 6,300 megawatts. For more than five years, we’ve examined our options and refurbishing our existing units has emerged as the most economical.” 

Bruce Power has notified the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that it will withdraw its site license applications and suspend its Environmental Assessments in Bruce County and Nanticoke.

It will now work with its investors and the Ontario Power Authority to investigate the feasibility of refurbishing Units 3-8 following the successful restart of Units 1 and 2, which will inject another 1,500 MW of baseload generation into the Ontario market.

For Bruce Power, refurbishing its remaining units could create up to 3,000 construction jobs and represent a multi-billion dollar investment over the next 10 years. It would also secure the long-term employment of up to 4,000 people to operate the site’s eight units over their extended lives.

 “While we have chosen to pursue the refurbishment option, I want to thank everyone in Bruce, Haldimand and Norfolk counties who supported us,” Hawthorne said. “The work we have done confirmed both sites held great promise for new build if the market conditions were more favourable. However, the time has come to narrow our focus and follow the route that’s best for us, for Ontario and its ratepayers.” 

About Bruce Power

Bruce Power is a partnership among Cameco Corporation, TransCanada Corporation, and BPC Generation Infrastructure Trust — a trust established by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, the Power Workers’ Union and The Society of Energy Professionals.

 For further information, please contact: Steve Cannon 519-361-6559 steve.cannon  AT  brucepower.com

24-hour Duty Media Officer 519-361-6161

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

 (5)  NUCLEAR ENERGY THREATENS ONTARIO’S GREEN FUTURE.  COST OF NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR DARLINGTON ESCALATES TO $26 BILLION.

Nuclear energy threatens Ontario’s green future

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/nuclear-costs-revealed

 We won’t say we told you so to Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman about skyrocketing costs for nuclear plants, but we should. A news story this week revealed that the cost of new nuclear plants for the Darlington site near Toronto has escalated to $26 billion from an initial government estimate of $6 billion.

 Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Shawn-Patrick Stensil has been telling the government this for months.

 Find out what else Greenpeace knows about energy in Ontario.

Read letter from Greenpeace and other enviro groups to Premier Dalton McGuinty. 

Read a backgrounder on green energy vs. nuclear energy in Ontario.

Take action now.  (click on their web-site)

Jul 012009
 
March 2012 update – – see  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4829
= = = = = = = =
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (NSA)    
SECOND OF TWO REPORTS ON THE DATA CENTRE
The National Security Agency is planning to build a $1.6 billion storage facility in Utah to warehouse personal data.  (UPDATE:  it got bigger).   The giant facility will contain more than 1 million square feet of data center space. Construction is scheduled to begin in June 2010 and be completed by March 2013. The new facility is estimated to require as much electricity as all of  Salt Lake City. All forms of electronic data will be stored at the center, such as intercepted phone calls, e-mail messages, Internet searches and other communications intercepted by the agency.
The effort was publicly disclosed in early 2008 and is designed to bolster cybersecurity-related awareness and incident response across the federal government. Much of the effort remains highly classified. It is partly an effort by federal agencies to reduce their exposure to Internet-based threats by reducing and consolidating the number of external Internet connections across government.  Instead of having each agency manage its own Internet connections, the plan involves having a small group of  Trusted Internet Connection (TIC) providers administer centralized connectivity and gateway-monitoring services for federal agencies. Critics of the project argue that the collection and permanant storage of such personal data is not necessary for national security purposes and intrudes upon the privacy rights of citizens.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  ==
FIRST OF TWO REPORTS ON THE DATA CENTRE

NSA Plans $1.6 Billion Utah Data Center

July 1st, 2009 : Rich Miller The National Security Agency is planning to build a massive data center at Fort Williams in Utah, which could eventually include more than 1 million square feet of data center space, reports the Salt Lake Tribune.
The first phase of the project will feature an $800 million investment in a 35-megawatt data center, with a second $800 million, 35-megawatt phase to follow. The initial phase is currently in the design stage, with construction scheduled to begin in June 2010 and be completed by March 2013, according to documents (link via Mark Fontecchio). Project specs call for a Tier III raised-floor facility.
The Utah project was enabled by a new funding bill signed last week by President Obama, which also provides money for an expansion of the power infrastructure at Fort Meade, Maryland where the NSA’s primary data center is located. The NSA’s operations at Fort Meade have reportedly been power-strapped since 2006, when the agency maxed out the electric capacity of the Baltimore Gas & Electric power grid.
The NSA facility will be the third huge data center to be built in Utah, which has prevailed in several of the most competitive data center projects in the Western U.S. In May 2008 Oracle Corp. (ORCL) said it would build a $285 million data center in West Jordan. In December West Jordan was also selected as the site for a $334 million eBay data center.
Between them, the three projects represent more than $2.2 billion in data center investment in the state of Utah.
Jun 172009
 

Banksters: Index

INSERT   May 31, 2017:

IMPORTANT, in relation to INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING

Scroll down to

(1)  CITIZEN OWNERSHIP OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

(2)  WHAT HAPPENS UNDER NAFTA

(3)  BRAD WALL AND THE “WESTERN ENERGY CORRIDOR”   (information regarding situation in the U.S., water)

 

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

Why do we need the “largest on the planet” movement of electricity and oil into the U.S.?  And just how sustainable is that?

(Brad Wall’s (Premier of Saskatchewan’s) Canada-U.S. Western Energy Corridor as reported in the Star Phoenix and Calgary Herald, June 15th, 2009)

CONTENTS

(-2)  CONDITIONING FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN SASKATCHEWAN

(-1) MEETING TIMES IN STONY RAPIDS, FOND DU LAC AND WOLLASTON LAKE.  SPREAD THE WORD!

(0)  PREAMBLE TO SASKATOON MEETING

(1)  CITIZEN OWNERSHIP OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

(2)  WHAT HAPPENS UNDER NAFTA

(3)  BRAD WALL AND THE “WESTERN ENERGY CORRIDOR”

(4)  STAR PHOENIX REPORT ON SASKATOON UDP PUBLIC CONSULTATION MEETING

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

(-2)  CONDITIONING FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN SASKATCHEWAN

REQUEST:  PLEASE help get the word to people in Stony Rapids, Fond du Lac and Wollaston Lake.  Meetings on the nuclear issue will be in their communities next week (schedule below).

Northern Saskatchewan is a target site for radioactive waste disposal.  They should know about the meetings.

IMPORTANT RE RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL.  We are in the process of being conditioned to believe that Governments have NO responsibility for where the radioactive waste goes.

Listen to the Florizone video that is played at the beginning of every public consultation meeting (link no longer valid  www.saskuranium.ca ).  You’ll hear it there and you’ll increasingly see it quoted and printed in the media.

It is, of course, not the case.  But they know that through repeating a message over and over again, they can convince people it’s true.  (It’s nothing more than applied advertising or brain-washing theory.)

In the video you will hear Florizone say that a COMMUNITY has the responsibility for deciding whether or not it will have a radioactive waste disposal site.  Well that’s bunk.  Governments have that responsibility.  It’s a way of getting around public opposition to radioactive waste sites in their province.  It might help get around federal and provincial environmental regulations, I don’t know.

It certainly makes it easier for the industry:  they have only one community to ply with money.  They target poor communities.

We need to start challenging the assertion that governments do not have responsibility for the siting of radioactive waste disposal.

(The words of Ron Covais (Security & Prosperity Partnership) from Maclean’s Magazine echo in my mind: “We’ve decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes,” says Covais, “Because we won’t get anywhere.”  The changes will come “by the accretion of hundreds of incremental changes . . “.  This is one change that we should not allow to happen!)

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

(-1) MEETING TIMES IN STONY RAPIDS, FOND DU LAC AND WOLLASTON LAKE.  SPREAD THE WORD!

The remaining public meetings:

Mon Tues, June 22 & 23, Regina, Travelodge South Hotel, Stakeholder Meetings

Public Consultation Meetings:

Wed June 24,  Stony Rapids, Community Hall,  7:30-10:00 pm

Thur June 25,  Fond du Lac, Band Hall,  1:00-3:30 pm

Thur June 25,  Wollaston Lake, LAC Hall,  7:00-9:30 pm

=========

(0)  PREAMBLE

PREAMBLE

Between 700 and 800 people attended the Saskatoon Meeting!  Wow! And congratulations to everyone.

Karen Weingeist, Dave and company put out 650 copies of an excellent pamphlet full of information, on chairs in the meeting hall beforehand.  And handed out hundreds more information sheets.  The hours that go into the wording, formatting, printing, copying, folding, cutting and distributing of information is pretty incredible. And these are all such happy people!

The meeting ended a little before 11:00 pm.

I am always bowled over by the variety of valuable insights that come from a group of people. And the “intensity of interest” in the crowd when the topic is critical.

I won’t list all the important points made.  (Audio recordings of the meetings are available — link no longer valid  www.saskuranium.ca )

Below I picked two points that I think are very important to carry forward into the next phase. In a separate email I’ll address another.

We need to stop nuclear power reactors in Saskatchewan and in Alberta.  It doesn’t matter if our reasons are different.  It only matters that we organize and use our power to stop them.  So that “IF” never happens.

We should clearly understand the “IF”.

/Sandra

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

(1)  CITIZEN OWNERSHIP OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

At the Saskatoon meeting, a retired employee of SaskPower pointed out the importance of people owning their own supply of electricity.

Bless him!  I wish every person in Saskatchewan and Alberta understood this.

IF NUCLEAR REACTORS GO AHEAD, BRUCE POWER OWNS THE ELECTRICITY.

I can’t emphasize the privatization issue enough. The Governor of California in the wake of their electricity crisis in the year 2000, spells out the lesson very clearly:

Governor Davis said:

“We must face reality:  California’s deregulation scheme is a colossal and dangerous failure.  It has not lowered consumer prices.  And it has not increased supply.  In fact, it has resulted in skyrocketing prices, price-gouging, and an unreliable supply of electricity.  In short, an energy nightmare . . .  we have lost control over our own power.  We have surrendered the decisions about where electricity is sold –  and for how much –  to private companies with only one objective:  maximizing unheard-of profits.”

Some see the UDP Report as a business plan for the privatization.  The functions of SaskPower would end up at Bruce Power.

The newspaper report circulated to you yesterday tells of Brad Wall spearheading the cross-border “Canada-U.S. Western Energy Corridor“.

The blue print is in B.C.  In 2003 the Campbell Government legislated changes to B.C. Hydro.  No one noticed until it was too late.  As I understand it, under the new legislation, B.C. Hydro BUYS electricity for the people of B.C..  Its role as the owner of the facilities that produce electricity, the public ownership of the electricity supply, ends.  They get Private Power Producers – privately-owned hydro-electric dams with private access to sections of their rivers.  This is different from dispersed, locally-owned wind and solar power generation that the public utility buys.

The danger with the PPP’s in B.C. is that the large corporations wait until large and small PPP’s are in place, get it past people, then they walk in and buy up the smaller outfits who are happy to sell because they get paid a bundle and can retire.

The safeguards we used to have, anti-combines legislation and Foreign Investment Review no longer exist.  The obstacles for the corporations, strengthened during the Trudeau years, are gone.  The large corporations can own and control the supply of electricity, just like they own oil. Alcan already owns the dam and section of the river at Kitimat. There are some other similar examples.

==========

(2)  WHAT HAPPENS UNDER NAFTA

One fellow at the Saskatoon meeting provided the NAFTA chapter that applies to sales of electricity.  By NAFTA rules, local Saskatchewan (and Alberta) people would have to pay the same price charged in the U.S. market into which the electricity is sold.  (Both Manitoba and B.C. sell electricity to the U.S. – I would like to confirm that the NAFTA rule applies and is enforced?)

Read yesterday’s (June 15th) newspaper report (see #4 below) on the effort spearheaded by Brad Wall, the “Western Energy Corridor”.  There is no doubt but that the part of the electricity that is not going for tar sands production is headed for the U.S.

Bruce Power is to own the nuclear power plants.  Its job is to make money.  The doom coming down the tracks in the U.S. means they will be increasingly desperate for electricity.  The California electricity experience, according to the Governor, in 2000 was “skyrocketing prices, price-gouging” and “unheard-of profits”.

Remember the examples of the salaries received by the executives of privatized crown corporations, Cameco and PotashCorp, sent in an earlier email.  These corporations have no qualms about anything.

Brad Wall is “spearheading” the Western (Canada-U.S.) Energy Corridor, the “largest on the planet”, “one that develops both non-renewable (tar sands) and clean-energy (nuclear) options.”

Why do we need the “largest on the planet” movement of electricity and oil into the U.S.?  It’s because the state of California alone has a population the size of Canada.  There is a 50/50 chance that their electricity supply will be gone by 2017 with falling water levels behind dams.  30 million Americans without electricity because they have abused their water supply (we do exactly the same thing).  I don’t even want to think what comes next after the electricity.

But we’ve talked about it before.  Peter Lougheed, former Premier of Alberta, laid it on the line in his letter published in the Globe and Mail a few years ago.  Old-timers in our network will remember:  “The Americans will be aggressively after our water in 3 to 5 years.  We had better be prepared.”  He used the word “aggressively”.  I have conveniently forgotten the year in which he said it.

He is wrong about one thing.  The Americans won’t be “aggressively” after our water.  Brad Wall is happy to hand it over, if his spearheading of the Western Energy Corridor is any indication.  Mind you, I suspect he is just picking up where the last government left off.  These negotiations take place over time.

Nuclear reactors and tar sands. They require water. Brad Wall should be required to paddle the Saskatchewan River. And read the scientific reports. There isn’t an abundance of water in the River, in spite of the assurances we are given about cross-border water agreements. The Americans left the management of the rivers in the hands of government, to disastrous consequence.  We should take heed.

The Western (Canada-U.S.) Energy Corridor, the “largest on the planet” is just the opening move. . . .   And yes, as reported in the Globe & Mail, dear Brad will be a wonderful prime minister, in the event that Stephen Harper can’t execute the agenda. Brad Wall (maybe not, he’s not bilingual – what a godsend).

I would really like to know who started that rumour about Brad, Prime Minister-in-waiting and got it published.  It will be repeated and repeated until we come to believe it.  He would be perfect for the corporate intentions, not only for the “largest on the planet energy corridor”, but for the next urgently-needed trench for the “product” water.

The 1972 map of water diversions from Canada to the U.S. shows them bringing the water down from Lake Athabasca along the Sask-Manitoba border to the U.S. through a series of dams that include the HighGate (North Sask River near North Battleford) (which we fought down) and Meridian (South Sask River near the Sask-Alberta border)(which we fought down back around 2000).

People are becoming more agreeable to the building of dams on the Churchill River for power generation; it is better than nuclear. But we should be careful. ANY dam that might become part of water diversion should not be built!

I am with those who think it possible (PROBABLE) that the Rafferty-Alameda Dam adjacent to the U.S. border in Saskatchewan is conveniently placed for water diversion into the States. The Rafferty-Alameda has its own story that does not make sense. Except in that context.

At one time the idea of the water diversions seemed silly. But when you know what’s happening in the western U.S. today, they don’t seem so silly. And when Premier Brad Wall (Saskatchewan) talks of the “cross-border Western Energy Corridor” that will be the largest on the planet I get nervous. A grandiose scheme for water diversion seems not far behind.

But I think Brad has a problem: he didn’t see us coming!

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

(3)  BRAD WALL AND THE “WESTERN ENERGY CORRIDOR”

Approximately, this is what I said or intended to say to the UDP Meeting last night in Saskatoon:

(Many of you know this from earlier emails.  Just skip it!)

(My name.)  I have run an email information network for 10 years.  I started working on water.  I have been very interested in matters of governance, what lies behind the decisions being made?  For example, we worked on GMO wheat.  Why were we fighting it when no one wanted it?  It wasn’t beneficial for farmers, or the public.  So who is it for?

What’s behind nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan?  (I then introduced and read from the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, June 15th, page D8.

“Premiers, governors promote Canada-U.S. energy corridor

Western premiers and U.S. governors on Sunday hailed their push to develop a cross-border Western Energy Corridor that will be the largest on the planet and one that develops both non-renewable and clean-energy options.  Spearheaded by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall” and  so on.

Note that the “non-renewable” option Wall speaks about is tar sands.  And the “clean-energy”  for the Corridor is nuclear.

A private group, MATL (Montana Alberta Tie Ltd) is trying to build a high-power transmission line from Lethbridge south to Montana.   The UDP Report says we will export electricity to Alberta.  But they are building nuclear reactors in Alberta, too.  So what’s behind it?

As the water behind a dam goes down, the ability to produce hydro-electricity is lost.   Rivers in the western United States are running out of water.  The situation is very serious.  But people can make a lot of money by selling electricity from Canada into the market for electricity in the U.S.

That’s the first part of “what’s behind it”?.  The second part is that we are running out of oil.  The development of the tar sands in Saskatchewan offers the opportunity to make more money.  The relationship between the nuclear and oil companies is symbiotic.

Someone here tonight said there is an estimated 8 years left in the natural gas supply needed to heat tar sands.   The oil companies HAVE to have electricity to heat up the tar sands.  They have to have the nuclear plants.  So that’s the second part of “what’s behind it?”.  Both reasons are caused by resource depletion.

As we know from the example of the cod fishery, the absolute wrong response is to do the things that only accelerate the depletion of the resource.  You have to get off the resource.  We have to move to conservation and alternative energy sources.  Get off oil and cherish our water supply.

There is a second matter:  (I talked about the lie in the Florizone video, that we solved the problem of acid rain.  A convenient lie for the oil and nuclear corporations, a great disservice to the people of Saskatchewan. If we don’t understand the true situation with acid rain in northern Saskatchewan, we can’t make right decisions. If we are going to kill the North with acid rain, we should at least know that is what we are doing.) Ignorance is not a defence.

For Florizone to collaborate in pedaling statements that contravene known fact is so repugnant.

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

(4)  STAR PHOENIX REPORT ON SASKATOON UDP PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

Meeting hears call for caution

More study required on Saskatchewan’s nuclear future: forum

By Jeremy Warren, The StarPhoenixJune 16, 2009

NUCLEAR ISSUE ATTRACTS CROWd: Dan Perrins, consultation chair of the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan forums, addresses a crowd of more than 750 people during Monday night’s meeting in Saskatoon

NUCLEAR ISSUE ATTRACTS CROWd: Dan Perrins, consultation chair of the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan forums, addresses a crowd of more than 750 people during Monday night’s meeting in Saskatoon Photograph by: Gord Waldner, The StarPhoenix, The StarPhoenix

A majority of the more than 750 people who packed a Saskatoon convention room Monday night for the latest Future of Uranium meeting rejected any movement on the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) report that recommended the development of nuclear energy in Saskatchewan.

During an open mic portion of the nearly three-hour meeting, University of Saskatchewan sessional lecturer Chris Jensen asked the crowd to raise a hand for one of two options: Do you support moving forward with the UDP report recommendations, or do you want to halt the report until an impartial study is completed?

A few raised hands were sprinkled across the large, hot convention room at the Travelodge Hotel for the first option. A forest of hands was raised for the second.

The consultation meetings — Saskatoon marked the ninth — are gathering public input on the UDP report that recommended several ways to develop nuclear energy on top of Saskatchewan’s uranium industry.

Ann Coxworth, the first speaker of the evening, has been with the Saskatchewan Environmental Society for 22 years, but her first career was as a nuclear chemist extracting plutonium from spent nuclear reactor fuel

“I hope now I can avoid the label of an ill-informed fear mongerer,”Coxworth said, to the first of many rounds of applause for nuclear development opponents.

Coxworth was invited to sit on the UDP board, but she declined, she said.

The mandate and composition of the board was a set-up to push for nuclear development, she added.

“(The partnership) was charged with how — not whether — Saskatchewan can develop the nuclear industry,” said Coxworth.

“It’s like a vegetarian being invited to a meeting to decide whether to serve beef or pork for dinner.

“It’s not the job of promoters to focus on the weak parts of their product.”

Anna Bigland-Pritchard, a 16-year-old student at Borden School, told the audience the Saskatchewan government is not engaging youth on nuclear issues.

“We’re not getting properly educated at school and we’re left to research the topics ourselves,” said Bigland-Pritchard. “Teenagers don’t care about newspapers or the news — they’re watching MTV.”

Today’s children will deal with the negative effects of nuclear power, she said.

“I might have to deal with the mess left by decisions made today by the adults here tonight,” said Bigland-Pritchard.

Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce CEO Steve McLellan made his organization’s pro-nuclear opinions known.

“We knew years ago that Saskatchewan needed houses, and we built. We know we need nurses and we’re trying to fix that,” said McLellan. “We now know our businesses and homes need more power. We support the UDP’s report recommendations.”

After hearing at several meetings that people felt there was a lack of alternative viewpoints in the UDP report, consultation chair Dan Perrins added to the agenda an open mic session.

Previously, those attending the meetings would break out into groups for facilitators to take down their comments for Perrins’ final report.

But it wasn’t easy to hear other criticisms Monday night. One pro- nuclear speaker was shouted down by an anti-nuclear supporter before a moderator could step in. While there have been similar incidents at past meetings, most have been cordial, said Perrins.

“Everyone should feel free to speak their minds, whether they support (development) or not,” he said in an interview after the open mic session.

The UDP report recommended the construction of a 3,000-megawatt reactor and other nuclear developments, such as a research reactor that could also produce medical isotopes.

The forums move to La Ronge tonight, before heading to Regina for two days of stakeholder meetings beginning June 22.

Perrins announced Monday three new meetings in northern Saskatchewan.

On June 24, the forum stops in Stony Rapids, before heading to Fond du Lac and Wollaston Lake on June 25.

jjwarren  AT  sp.canwest.com

Jun 152009
 

Thanks to Herman who writes:   Today’s Star Phoenix page D8, nicely buried on the back of the Classifieds section.

– – – – – – – –

I guess they can at least say they published it!

Note,  keep in mind when reading:   this is cross-border energy export, Canada to U.S.   The American Southwest is dependent upon the Colorado River for hydro-electricity generated by the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams on the Colorado River.  The science from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography:  a 50/50 chance that by 2017 water levels will have fallen to the point that the turbines will not be turning.

/Sandra

 

Canwest News Service June 15, 2009

Western premiers and U.S. governors on Sunday hailed their push to develop a cross-border Western Energy Corridor that will be the largest on the planet and one that develops both non-renewable and clean-energy options.

Spearheaded by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, the initiative could open new markets to the three Prairie provinces, which are all major energy producers in both renewables and fossil fuels.

Wall, Alberta’s Ed Stelmach and Manitoba’s Gary Doer — all in Park City, Utah, for the Western Governors’ Association annual conference — met Sunday with state political leaders to explore the potential for a broader energy relationship.

“The western part of North America has this great swath of both renewables and non-renewables in terms of energy sources and huge opportunities around sustainable energy development, but we need to be co-operating,” Wall told Canwest News Service in Park City, a mountain resort community located about 50 kilometres east of Salt Lake City.

“We know that there’s an interest in the part of the consuming states perhaps on the West Coast for more renewables.”

Stelmach said the western governors are very supportive of the corridor concept and recognize there’s a lot of trade possibilities. Energy development is key for global competitiveness, job creation and economic growth, he said, so the entire western region stands to benefit.

“They know that we have an excellent opportunity as neighbours on the North American continent to co-operate,” Stelmach said. “There definitely is an interest.”

Schweitzer, vice-chair of the Western Governors’ Association and a lead point man for the group on the energy file, went even farther. He declared the oilsands — the second largest proven oil reserves in the world — critically important to the U.S.’s energy security and a major component for a powerhouse energy corridor.

“The most important energy corridor on the planet is no longer the Persian Gulf. It runs from the oilsands, Fort McMurray to Port Arthur, Texas,” Schweitzer said. “A large part of energy independence is going to be dependent upon developing the oilsands.”

The corridor is home to some of the best wind and solar resources on the planet, he noted, and also contains massive coal and natural gas deposits, as well as valuable uranium in Saskatchewan. He also highlighted a new pipeline being built south of the border to ship oilsands from Alberta across the U.S. that will contain about five per cent of all the oil consumed in America.

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter agreed, saying “it’s both western parts of Canada and the United States that can play a role in energy independence.”

Wall stressed a major benefit of an energy corridor partnership is cost savings and shared knowledge on the research and technology side.

“Heaven forbid we all test the same technologies. We ought to be sharing information and peering over our respective fences,” he said.

The backing of U.S. governors on oilsands development came a day before Wall and Stelmach are scheduled to meet with U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, one of U.S. President Barack Obama’s top officials in developing America’s energy and climate change plans.

Chu has also lauded the potential of the oilsands, saying recently it’s an important piece of U.S. energy security. Much like Stelmach’s Alberta government, he also believes technology is key to reducing the environmental footprint on land, air and water.

(CALGARY HERALD)

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

Jun 032009
 

Note:   (1)  NWMO = Nuclear Waste Management Organization, their website:  http://www.nwmo.ca/  

(2)   (below)  Gordon refers to fact that Quebec Legislature prohibited import of radioactive waste for storage in Quebec.  Not everyone will know that THE HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE ACT for Manitoba was assented to in 1987. It makes it illegal to import radioactive waste into Manitoba. 

—– Original Message —–

From: Gordon Edwards

Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:27 AM 

For those of you who do not read French (below): 

This article in Le Devoir is amazing.  And encouraging.

It refers to NWMO’s plans for siting a permanent nuclear waste repository in one of the four “nuclear provinces” of New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, and Saskatchewan.  

“It will never happen in Quebec”, says the Minister of Natural Resources and Wildlife, Claude Béchard, responding on Wednesday June 3 to an article published Monday June 1 in which an 11-year project for siting a high-level radioactive waste repository in the Blanc-Sablon region of Quebec.  The proposed project would take irradiated nuclear fuel from all of Canada’s nuclear reactors and from overseas, receiving these wastes by boat from the Atlantic Ocean (thereby avoiding extensive road or rail travel) and reprocessing them to recover the plutonium and other fissile material before re-solidifying and storing the remainder…. 

He refers to the fact that his party supported a motion that was adopted last autumn by Quebec’s National Assembly opposing any form of import of nuclear wastes into Quebec.

– – – – — – – – – – – —

Béchard ne veut pas des déchets nucléaires venus d’ailleurs http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/06/03/253250.html

Louis-Gilles Francoeur

Édition du mercredi 03 juin 2009 

«Ça ne se fera pas au Québec!» C’est en ces termes qu’a réagi hier le ministre des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Claude Béchard, au projet Securad de stockage de déchets nucléaires dans la région de Blanc-Sablon, sur la Basse-Côte-Nord, exposé hier par Le Devoir.  

Le ministre a ajouté en entrevue téléphonique que le Québec n’a ni le besoin ni le goût d’accueillir un site d’entreposage à long terme des déchets nucléaires du reste du Canada et de l’étranger. 

«Avec seulement 3 % des déchets nucléaires canadiens, je ne vois pas pourquoi on écoperait des déchets du reste du pays», précise le ministre, qui rappelle que son parti a aussi appuyé la motion adoptée par l’Assemblée nationale l’automne dernier pour s’opposer à toute forme d’importation de déchets nucléaires au Québec. 

Alors, pourquoi Hydro-Québec siège-t-elle toujours au sein de la Société de gestion des déchets nucléaires du Canada? «Parce qu’on veut être à la table pour voir ce qui s’en vient, affirme le ministre. Hydro-Québec a le mandat d’informer les autres partenaires et de leur dire qu’avec 3 % des déchets du pays, on n’ira pas très loin» avec un projet de stockage en territoire québécois. 

Le ministre québécois estime que les méthodes de stockage d’Hydro-Québec à la centrale nucléaire de Gentilly-2 sont sécuritaires et permettent d’attendre qu’un site de stockage définitif soit construit quelque part au Canada. 

Mais la loi fédérale, reconnaît Claude Béchard, impose à Hydro-Québec de participer au processus de sélection d’un site et de verser 4 millions par année en plus des 20 millions versés initialement pour mettre en marche le processus. L’Ontario a initialement versé 500 millions et sa contribution annuelle s’élève à 100 millions. 

Claude Béchard est cependant conscient «qu’on ne peut pas empêcher le fédéral» d’examiner ou même d’implanter un projet de stockage au Québec en raison de la prépondérance constitutionnelle des lois fédérales. Mais au plan politique, ce serait une autre affaire. 

Le ministre se déclare par ailleurs très sceptique quant à la possibilité de voir le gouvernement Williams de Terre-Neuve, une province qui n’a aucun équipement nucléaire, accepter ce projet chez lui, comme le promoteur du projet Securad l’a laissé entendre en entrevue hier au Devoir.

En effet, l’ingénieur Guy Arbour a indiqué que son projet de s’établir sur la Basse-Côte-Nord «était toujours actif». Il précise que le projet est présentement en phase de financement et d’examen d’une campagne d’information pour obtenir éventuellement l’adhésion de la région à la suite d’un débat qu’il espère rigoureux et objectif, compte tenu de l’importance des retombées économiques pour cette région. 

Il regrette que le Devoir ait publié un extrait d’un document de son groupe, qui datait de quelques années, dit-il, et dans lequel «on était optimiste sur une entente prochaine avec les maires». Le projet Securad étant au ralenti depuis deux ans, dans l’attente de l’accélération du processus fédéral, Guy Arbour dit craindre de perdre prématurément l’appui des maires, qu’il espérait obtenir sur la foi d’études plus complètes. 

Le p.-d.g de Securad évoque aussi la possibilité de transférer son projet du côté de Terre-Neuve, dans la région du lac Melville, si les élus québécois de la Basse-Côte-Nord n’en veulent pas chez eux, comme devait l’affirmer plus tard hier après-midi le président du Conseil des maires de la région, Randy Jones, maire de Gros-Mécatina. 

Selon le maire Randy Jones, «jamais les maires de la région n’ont appuyé de près ou de loin ce projet qui, en réalité, ne nous semble pas très sérieux, compte tenu du flou des réponses que nous avons obtenues à nos questions. Oui, les promoteurs du projet nous appellent souvent, mais on ne répond plus. Ils nous ont même invités à visiter des centrales nucléaires en Ontario. Mais aucun maire d’ici n’a accepté l’invitation. On a assez de problèmes avec notre eau potable, nos eaux usées et l’absence de routes pour ne pas ajouter les déchets nucléaires en plus. On est une région de pêcheurs, et voir des navires bourrés de matériel irradié passer par ici n’intéresse personne. On ne va pas risquer de contaminer le golfe et de perdre le plus beau coin de la province. On ne veut pas devenir la fosse septique du reste de la planète. Je ne veux pas parler pour nos voisins de Terre-Neuve, mais je ne pense pas que le comité de réception sera meilleur de ce côté-là.» 

Quant au Parti québécois et au Bloc, ils ont écrit tous les deux ces derniers jours à la Société fédérale de gestion des déchets nucléaires, qui avait transporté son matériel d’information hier à Trois-Rivières, pour faire état de leur opposition la plus totale au projet.

 Certes, reconnaît Scott McKay, porte-parole du PQ en matière d’environnement, la prépondérance du fédéral en matière d’énergie nucléaire est difficile à contourner au plan juridique. Mais si Ottawa amorçait l’examen d’un site de stockage au Québec, ce serait, dit-il, un défi inacceptable aux pouvoirs du Québec et de ses régions de planifier elles-mêmes l’aménagement du territoire. 

À l’opposition des écologistes et des anti-nucléaires, dont Le Devoir faisait état hier, s’est ajouté hier celle de la députée de Duplessis, Lorraine Richard, qui promet «une vive opposition» si le processus fédéral envisage quelque scénario de stockage pour la Basse-Côte-Nord.

May 292009
 

Lockheed Martin says that it no longer manufactures cluster munitions.   Canada is signatory to the international treaty to ban cluster munitions and to use economic sanctions in support of the ban.  

In blatant disregard of our legal obligations we have enriched Lockheed Martin Corporation – – also in spite  of Canadian and International Law that prohibits land mines (Lockheed Martin also a manufacturer of land mines). 

See postings 2008-07-24 Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of cluster bombs. Other nations taking action against them. What’s wrong with us?  and

2008-12-08  Canada signs international treaty to ban cluster bombs. The treaty conditions and moral authority require us to dis-invest from Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of cluster munitions.  

The most recent update:

http://lm.icbl.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=2009&pqs_type=cm&pqs_report=canada 

Canada signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Oslo on 3 December 2008. In a February 2009 letter to Human Rights Watch, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated, “Canadian officials are preparing the documentation so that Cabinet can consider ratification at the earliest possible date.” The letter noted that all necessary domestic legislation must be in place before ratification can take place.[1] 

———————————————  

Cluster bombs destroyed before treaty ratification * Ratification likely this year, hopes U.S. will sign

http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSLT1012946._CH_.2400  

by Jonathan Lynn   Published on Friday, May 29, 2009 by Reuters AlertNet 

Countries Destroying Cluster Bomb Stockpiles: Report http://lm.icbl.org/index.php/publications/display?url=cm/2009/ 

GENEVA – Several of the 96 states that have so far signed a treaty to ban cluster bombs have started to destroy their stockpiles of the deadly weapons even before the treaty is ratified, an advocacy group said on Friday. 

Supporters of the ban on the munitions that have killed or maimed tens of thousands of people said they hope the United States, which remains outside the pact along with Russia, China and other powers, will shortly sign up.  

“Only a few years ago the destruction of these stockpiled cluster munitions would have been unthinkable, but there has been a sea change of opinion against this weapon,” said Steve Goose of non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch. 

“In an incredibly short period of time, many governments have moved from staunchly defending the need for cluster munitions to completely rejecting them,” he said in a statement on the launch of a report on efforts to ban the weapons. 

Goose said Spain had already completed the destruction of its stockpile, and Colombia was close to doing so. Canada and half a dozen European countries were also in the process. 

The treaty was signed in Oslo last December by over 90 countries after a campaign to outlaw cluster bombs. 

The bombs contain scores or hundreds of submunitions or “bomblets” that blanket wide areas and which may explode years later, posing lethal danger to civilians especially children. 

Campaigners for the ban were pleased 35 former users, producers, stockpilers and exporters of the weapons, including Britain and France, have signed up. 

Signatories include 20 members of the NATO alliance as well as countries where the weapons have been used, such as Afghanistan, Laos and Lebanon. 

The treaty will come into force six months after it has been ratified by 30 countries. 

So far seven countries — Austria, Ireland, Laos, Mexico, Norway, Sierra Leone and the Vatican — have ratified the treaty and Goose said he was confident the remainder of the 30 countries would follow suit by the end of the year. 

Campaigners hope President Barack Obama will sign up the United States, which has already banned exports of the weapons and currently plans to ban them from 2018. 

Of countries staying away, Brazil, which cites the economic benefit of producing and selling the weapons, has been a big disappointment, said Goose.  

(For a FACTBOX on cluster munitions click on [ID:LT581906]) (For the full report go to: http://www.lm.icbl.org/cm/2009 [1] ) 

© 2009 Reuters

May 112009
 

From: Global Network

THE OTHER MISSILE DEFENSE  (Link no longer valid)

While in Korea for our Global Network annual conference last month we were taken to Pyeongtaek where the US is dramatically expanding a military base. There we were shown nearly a dozen mobile PAC-3 (Patriot Advanced Capability) launchers parked just beyond the razor-wired fence. We also learned more about the US deployments of the PAC-3 “missile defense” system throughout Japan.

Lockheed Martin describes their PAC-3 system as “the world’s most advanced, capable and powerful terminal air defense missile. It defeats the entire threat: tactical ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction, cruise missiles and aircraft. The PAC-3 Missile is a high velocity interceptor that defeats incoming targets by direct, body-to-body [kinetic] impact.”

The PAC-3 system, along with THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system, are the new “layered look” for the Pentagon’s missile defense program. The mobile THAAD, designed to shoot down short-and medium-range ballistic missiles, are also being heavily deployed in Japan and South Korea along with PAC-3 in order to serve as key elements of US military strategy aimed at China.

Add the Navy’s Aegis destroyer, also outfitted with missile defense interceptors and being deployed in the Asian-Pacific region, into the scheme and you get the full picture of this theater-wide program to take out “the enemy” retaliatory missiles after a US first-strike attack.

In addition to Lockheed Martin, the Raytheon Company, based in Tewksbury, MA., also plays a key role in building PAC-3.

The PAC-3 program is coordinated for the Pentagon by the Army’s Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama.

Currently the US is deploying the PAC-3 in South Korea, Japan, Iraq, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Kuwait, Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Taiwan, and Israel. The Pentagon has also recently signed a deal to deploy PAC-3 in Poland.

Turkey has also recently shown interest in acquiring a similar system but has been talking with competitors of the US weapons industry about buying the technology from them. However, Washington has been pressuring Ankara to consider potential “NATO interoperability problems” that could occur should Turkey opt for a non-Western solution. Subtle arm twisting you might say.

The  Hamamatsu City, Japan Human Rights and Peace group (pictured above) has been organizing to protest the deployment of PAC-3 at a base near their community.  In one of their reports they say, “In a real battle, PAC-3 is used under the united-command of Japan and the US which now rules the space.  Such usage of PAC-3 is in violation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution which prohibits collective defense and warfare.  It is true that the real target of PAC-3 is Article 9.  We are living in such a dangerous situation.  However, to change our time from one of global war to one of global peace, we would like to learn from history and pursue such movements as to prevent Hamamatsu from becoming a military stronghold ever again.”

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Brunswick, ME 04011;   (207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com

Apr 202009
 

Note:  Congressman Dennis Kucinich  does very good work.   He spoke albeit briefly at the Washington Conference I attended in June 2010 to see what the thinking of activists in the U.S. is.   He is behind this achievement.

From: Nicole

Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 9:11:59 PM
Subject:  Victory against privatization

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/20-13

Kucinich: Victory Against Privatization

DFAS takes away Contract from Lockheed Martin, Government to Perform Services

WASHINGTON – April 20 – Following a relentless effort by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to challenge the Bush administration’s efforts to privatize Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) jobs since 2001, DFAS today announced that that it will cancel agreements with Lockheed Martin and employ government workers to perform all areas of retroactive pay and benefits for veterans.

“This is a great day for veterans and a victory for government oversight. This decision will finally end the six-year nightmare of privatization of retired and annuitant pay services that resulted in the degradation of services to veterans and an increased cost to taxpayers. I thank Director McKay and Comptroller Robert Hale for their choice to serve veterans first, rather than perpetuate a lucrative contract with the nation’s largest military contractor,” stated Kucinich

Lockheed’s performance of the retired and annuitant pay functions of DFAS was characterized by mishandling, delay, poor quality and exorbitant charges. An investigation by Chairman Kucinich’s Domestic Policy Subcommittee published in July 2008 revealed that 8,763 disabled veterans died before their cases were even reviewed for eligibility in a program that allowed retired veterans with severe combat-related disabilities to receive concurrent disability and retirement pay. Almost 30,000 veterans were denied the benefit based solely on the determination of Lockheed employees with about six weeks of training.

At a Subcommittee hearing, then-director Zack Gaddy promised Chairman Kucinich a thorough audit of the VA Retro program, and correction of the underlying problems. DFAS’ announcement today stems from that assurance.

Lockheed is the world’s largest military contractor, with almost all of its revenue coming from the U.S. government. Aside from payroll and other services, Lockheed also manufactures the F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning and the THAAD missile defense system.

“I am very pleased that DFAS will once again ensure quality service by operating this program ‘in house’ with trained and qualified staff. I hope that this experiment in privatization will demonstrate to other agencies the costs, both financial and otherwise, of outsourcing the responsibilities of government,” stated Kucinich. “As Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee, I will continue to review privatization efforts of the Bush Administration.”

—
“Human kind has not woven the web of life. We are but a thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.”

Chief Seattle?