Sandra Finley

2004-09-13 J. K. Galbraith, “The Economics of Innocent Fraud”. PPPs (Public Private Partnerships)

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category)  No Responses »
Sep 132004
 

” ..   A large, vital and expanding part of what is called the public sector is for all practical effect in the private sector.  . .  . ”

“Needed is independent, honest, professionally competent regulation – again, a difficult thing to achieve in a world of corporate dominance.  This last must be recognized and countered.  There is no alternative to effective supervision. …”

 

RECOMMEND:   scroll down to Item #2  (excerpts, Galbraith).

 

CONTENTS

1.  SERENDIPITY AND CONNECTEDNESS

2.  J. K. GALBRAITH:  THE ECONOMICS OF INNOCENT FRAUD, TRUTH FOR OUR TIME

3.  MY CUP RUNNETH OVER.  GOOD THINGS KEEP HAPPENING TO HALLIBURTON  (Boulder, Colo)

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

1.  SERENDIPITY AND CONNECTEDNESS

A chain of events:

–  I have paid little real attention to John Kenneth Galbraith since about 1970 when his book, “The Affluent Society” caught my attention.

–  In early August 2004 Galbraith’s writing came up in a conversation, he has a new book.

–  The very next evening a farmer phoned me, a person I had never heard of, from a place I’d never heard of.  One of my emails had been forwarded to him.  The conversation was about water issues and the Great Lakes.  And whose name should be introduced by the farmer but John Kenneth Galbraith’s.

–  Two hits in two days.  That is a strong signal for me to pay attention!

I start a re-read of “The Affluent Society“, without knowing why I am doing this. … In less than an hour,  … Eureka!

–  I had been working on the submission to the City: a decision against using vaporooter to chemically dissolve tree roots in sewer lines would be a first step in addressing our reckless disregard for what we are dumping into water supplies.

The critical point is not lack of information, but our inability to bring about change.  I was writing about “The dynamics of change“.  Presto!  right there in Galbraith’s writing is a description of “conventional wisdom” and how it operates.  (Conventional wisdom is something I know about at a pre-verbal level;  Galbraith articulates for me, I then recognize and move from pre-verbal to articulate.)  It was eureka! very helpful to the small work I was doing on “The Dynamics of Change“.

–  Next I read Galbraith’s most recent book, “The Economics of Innocent Fraud – Truth for our Time“.  (Galbraith is pretty amazing.  He was born in 1908 and publishes a book in 2004!)  In this book he describes the myth of democracy and the myth of how economies function today. He then states what is real.  We do not have a “market system” allocating goods in a democratic society, in spite of what might be taught in university classes.

–  I see the movie Fahrenheit 9/11.  It’s about what Galbraith is talking about.

–  This morning I sent the email encouraging people to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

–  Then went to my inbox to find “Halliburton’s Good Fortune Never Ends”  (courtesy of Hart).  Halliburton Corporation is featured in Fahrenheit 9/11.

–  For me, the better I learn to follow the serendipity, the more that life is an adventure.  I am being led (mind you, I have to exercise thoughtful intelligence and make a conscious choice whether or not to follow – a matter of learning to distinguish between the intuitive and flim-flam).  Excitement comes from the delight of discovering what lies along the path.  Without the serendipitous signals I would not be able to discern the path to adventure.

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

2.  J. K. GALBRAITH, THE ECONOMICS OF INNOCENT FRAUD, TRUTH FOR OUR TIME 

Published in 2004, John Kenneth Galbraith’s  “The Economics of Innocent Fraud – Truth for our Time” discusses the reality of politics and economics today.

Some excerpts:

“The accepted distinction between the public and the private sectors has no meaning when seriously viewed.  Rhetoric, not reality.  A large, vital and expanding part of what is called the public sector is for all practical effect in the private sector.  . .  . 

In recent times the intrusion into what is called the public sector by the ostensibly private sector has become a commonplace.  Management having full authority in the modern great corporation (INSERT: as opposed to the Board of Directors), it was natural that it would extend its role to politics and to government.  …

At this writing, corporate managers are in close alliance with the President, The Vice President and the Secretary of Defence. Major corporate figures are also in senior positions elsewhere in the federal government; one came from the bankrupt and thieving Enron to preside over the Army.  …  

For some years there has also been recognized corporate control of the Treasury.  And of environmental policy.  And there is more …   (INSERT: Galbraith goes on to the role of corporations in U.S. Dept of Defence and Foreign Affairs.  I won’t copy that here – the article about Halliburton below is example.  “Some of the President’s Monsanto Men” written in the Idaho Observer and on web-sites is another example of this corporate “intrusion”.  I have used the word “infiltration” in the past.)   …

“The blurring of the difference between the private and corporate sector and the diminishing public sector proceeds. …  

“As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector, it serves, predictably, the corporate interest.  That is its purpose.” 

“One obvious result has been well-justified doubt as to the quality of much present regulatory effort.  There is no question but that corporate influence extends to the regulators.  … 

“Needed is independent, honest, professionally competent regulation – again, a difficult thing to achieve in a world of corporate dominance.  This last must be recognized and countered.  There is no alternative to effective supervision. …”

Galbraith concludes his book by saying that the greatest human failure is war.

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

3.  MY CUP RUNNETH OVER.  GOOD THINGS KEEP HAPPENING TO HALLIBURTON

This was in my inbox just after I sent the email encouraging people to see Fahrenheit 9/11.  The connections between Halliburton and the Bush Administration are shown in the movie.

Thanks to Hart.    Published on Saturday, September 11, 2004 by The Daily Camera (Boulder, Colorado)

Halliburton’s Good Fortune Never Ends

by Christopher Brauchli

My Cup Runneth Over  – 23rd Psalm

Good things keep happening to Halliburton.

It all started when the company’s former chief executive, Dick Cheney, became vice president of the United States, although he’s too modest to admit his election had anything to do with it. Had he and George W. Bush not been elected, it is unlikely that Iraq would have needed the repairs to its oil pipe lines that Halliburton has been working on and even more unlikely that there would have been American troops stationed in Iraq needing the kinds of services Halliburton has been providing. For that, at least, Mr. Cheney deserves full credit.

We must also give Mr. Cheney credit for the fact that Halliburton got its initial contract for work in Iraq without having to go through the annoying bidding process. The most recent developments mean Halliburton won’t be punished for poor accounting and has the opportunity to make back the money it had to repay or forfeit because of corruption or poor accounting, depending on one’s perspective. But it’s not all been roses for the company and critics should keep that in mind.

In 2003 it was disclosed that Kellogg Brown & Root had overbilled the U.S. government by $27.4 million for meals served to American troops. That, the company explained, was not KBR’s problem. KBR subcontracted the food service to an Iraqi company which billed for roughly three times more meals than it actually served its customers. KBR couldn’t have anticipated the overbilling even though it sent a memorandum to the subcontractor telling it to charge for “the projected number of meals or the actual head count — whichever is greater.”

In early August a Pentagon internal report disclosed that KBR had failed to fully account for a portion of the $4.2 billion it received for work done in Iraq and Kuwait. Explaining the failure, a company spokesman said that the government’s shifting needs and the complexity of providing logistical support made accounting difficult. The Pentagon’s report proved his point and was not without potential consequences.

Under government contracting rules, when an accounting is found wanting 15 percent of the amount owed must be withheld until accounting issues have been resolved. During 2004 Halliburton received two extensions to give it additional time to resolve accounting issues. The last extension expired on Aug. 11 and for a very short time it looked as though there would not be another extension. A company spokesman said the report was only advisory and the agency making it has “no authority to determine the adequacy of our systems.” She added that the Pentagon report is part of a routine process that is “amicably resolved.” She got the amicable part right although there were some anxious moments.

On Aug. 17 it was reported that the government planned to withhold about $60 million a month from KBR until accounting issues were resolved. That was distressing news to Halliburton, more especially since on Aug. 16 the army and the company had jointly announced that it had been agreed no money would be withheld and KBR would be given additional time to prove its costs.

Explaining the decision to give Halliburton extra time, Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for the Army Materiel Command, said the army was trying to be “fair and equitable.” Shortly after the announcement was made the army changed its mind about what was fair and equitable and announced it would withhold payments after all.

For a while it looked as though Halliburton’s string of good fortune had come to an end. Then one of those strange but serendipitous events occurred that seems to constantly befall Halliburton. Late in the day on Aug. 17, the army announced it had changed its mind yet again and would give KBR a third extension. That was not the end of Halliburton’s August good fortune.

A few days after the extension was granted the army announced that it planned to divide the $12 billion of work previously given to Halliburton among several companies and require Halliburton to bid on the contracts.

Although forcing Halliburton to bid on contracts it had received without bidding might seem like an unfavorable turn of events, it is not. David Lesar, Halliburton’s chief executive explained: “If we do choose to rebid, we’re going to jack the margins up significantly, ” thus suggesting that contracts Halliburton enters into with higher profit margins will make up for the money the company lost after it quit cheating the taxpayer. Give Mr. Cheney at least some of the credit for Halliburton’s good fortune.

Christopher Brauchli is a Boulder lawyer and and writes a weekly column for the Knight Ridder news service. He can be reached at  brauchli.56  AT  post.harvard.edu

Copyright 2004, The Daily Camera

2004-08-06 The most telling aspect of a government, however, is how it distributes the goods of the land. Does it safeguard the commonwealth – the public trust assets – on behalf of the public? Or does it allow the shared wealth of our communities to be stolen from the public by corporate power? , Robert F. Kennedy Jr

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Robert F Kennedy Jr  No Responses »
Aug 062004
 

For those who question the sincerity of Kennedy, biographical information is at bottom.  This article by Kennedy probably has wide circulation.  It is in the Alameda Times-Star, for example.

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

Thanks to Elaine: 

The Forest For the Trees      By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,

Posted on August 5, 2004, Printed on August 6, 2004     http://www.alternet.org/story/19461/   

There are several ways to measure the effectiveness of a democracy. One is to look at how much the public is included in community decision-making.

Another is to evaluate access to justice. 

The most telling aspect of a government, however, is how it distributes the goods of the land. Does it safeguard the commonwealth – the public trust assets – on behalf of the public? Or does it allow the shared wealth of our communities to be stolen from the public by corporate power? 

The environmental laws passed after Earth Day 1970 were designed to protect the commons – those shared resources that cannot be reduced to private property, including the air, flowing water, public lands, wandering animals, fisheries, wetlands and aquifers.  

Since then, life has dramatically improved in America. Children have measurably less lead in their blood and therefore higher IQ levels. We breathe cleaner air in our cities and parks, swim in cleaner water in our lakes and rivers. These laws have protected the stratospheric ozone layer, reduced acid rain, saved threatened wildlife like the bald eagle, and preserved some of the last remaining wild places that make America so beautiful. In other words, they protect the parts of America that we all hold in common. 

But George W. Bush’s policy advisers somehow don’t see the benefits we’ve received from our investments in America’s environmental infrastructure. All they see is the cost of compliance to their campaign contributors – a group that is led by the nation’s most egregious polluters. This myopic vision has led the White House to abandon its responsibility to protect the public trust.  

James Watt, President Ronald Reagan’s first Interior secretary, once promised, “We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber.” In April 2001, a retired James Watt told the Denver Post, “Everything Cheney’s saying, everything the president’s saying, they’re saying exactly what we were saying 20 years ago, precisely. Twenty years later, it sounds like they’ve just dusted off the old work.” 

Bush administration Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton presides over a rich treasure trove: 450 million acres of America’s public lands and 3 billion acres of coastal waterways.  

She has also been a champion of corporate welfare, and of polluters, for three decades. 

I’ve had many brushes with Norton’s crew of ideologues. I have seen them subvert the law and corrupt our democracy and distort science. I have witnessed their willingness to break promises and deceive those they are appointed to serve. 

In summer 2003, my cousin Maria Shriver’s husband, Arnold Schwarzenegger, approached me out on Cape Cod. He was determined, he said, to be “the best environmental governor in California history.”  

I agreed to help him, and worked with a group of sympathetic Republicans and Democrats in California to draft Arnold’s environmental platform. Among the key provisions was support for the Sierra Nevada Framework – the product of a decade of grueling work by government, timber industry and environmental groups to manage the Sierra Nevada forests. But radicals at Interior opposed restrictions on the use of public lands. 

Immediately after the election, conservative Republican Congressman David Dreier asked Schwarzenegger, at the behest of the White House, to abandon support for the Framework. Schwarzenegger refused, but noted that if changes to the Framework were warranted by new information or science, the Framework should be modified by the same thoughtful, inclusive stakeholder process that had resulted in the original plan.  

This seemed to appease the White House. Bush senior political adviser Karl Rove promised that no federal action would be taken on Framework protections, especially logging, without extensive discussions with the state and all stakeholders.

And yet, in the late afternoon of Jan. 21, 2004, Gov. Schwarzenegger received word that the U.S. Forest Service would announce a new plan for the Sierra Nevada, tripling logging levels over the Framework agreement. 

Schwarzenegger’s office and California Environmental Protection Administration Commissioner Terry Tamminen tried frantically to reach administration officials but all calls went unanswered. To emphasize its contempt for the process, the Forest Service held a press conference in the Sacramento Hyatt, directly across the street from the governor’s office, to announce its plan. 

Republicans and Democrats alike in the Schwarzenegger administration were furious at the betrayal and astounded at the hardheaded arrogance that accompanied the broken promise. 

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

============================ 

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION,  ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR

This Kennedy is familiar to old networkers from his work on water issues.  During Christmas season, 2003, he caused a stir in Alberta going toe-to-toe with Premier Klein and Environment Minister Taylor (with whom we toed-to-toed during the Meridian Dam battle).  Kennedy warned Albertans not to become lackeys for Intensive Livestock Operations that are being ousted from American states (like North Carolina) after extreme environmental degradation.  A Chapter of his Waterkeeper Alliance organization was established and several “stars” appeared on the Banff ski-slopes in aid of promotion. 

BIO FROM THE RIVERKEEPER’S WEB-SITE:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is credited with leading the fight to protect New York City’s water supply, but his reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions. The list includes winning numerous settlements for Riverkeeper, prosecuting governments and companies for polluting the Hudson River and Long Island Sound, arguing cases to expand citizen access to the shoreline, and suing treatment plants to force compliance with the Clean Water Act. 

Mr. Kennedy acts as Chief Prosecuting Attorney for Riverkeeper. He also serves as Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and as President of the Waterkeeper Alliance. At Pace University School of Law, he is a Clinical Professor and Supervising Attorney at the Environmental Litigation Clinic in White Plains, New York. Earlier in his career Mr. Kennedy served as Assistant District Attorney in New York City. 

The New York City watershed agreement, which he negotiated on behalf of environmentalists and the city’s watershed consumers, is regarded as an international model in stakeholder consensus negotiations and sustainable development. He helped lead the fight to turn back the aggressive anti-environmental legislation during the 104th Congress. 

Mr. Kennedy has worked on environmental issues across the Americas. He has assisted several indigenous tribes in Latin America and Canada in successfully negotiating treaties protecting traditional homelands. 

Mr. Kennedy has published several books, including The Riverkeepers (1997) with John Cronin. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, Atlantic Monthly, The Wall Street Journal, Esquire, The Village Voice, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Pace Environmental Law Review, and other publications. 

Mr. Kennedy is a graduate of Harvard University. He studied at the London School of Economics and received his law degree from the University of Virginia Law School. He also received a Masters Degree in Environmental Law from Pace University. 

He is a licensed master falconer, and as often as possible he pursues a life-long enthusiasm for white-water paddling. He has organized and led several expeditions to Latin America, including first descents on three little known rivers in Peru, Columbia, and Venezuela.

2004-08-03 GMO Trees, New York Times

 Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Aug 032004
 

Turning Genetically Engineered Trees Into Toxic Avengers

By HILLARY ROSNER

 

Last summer, on the site of 35 former hat factories where toxic mercury was once used to cure pelts, city officials in Danbury, Conn., deployed a futuristic weapon: 160 Eastern cottonwoods.

Dr. Richard Meagher, a professor of genetics at the University of Georgia, genetically engineered the trees to extract mercury from the soil, store it without being harmed, convert it to a less toxic form of mercury and release it into the air.

It was one of two dozen proposals Dr. Meagher has submitted to various agencies over two decades for engineering trees to soak up chemicals from contaminated soil. For years, no one would pay him to try. “I got called a charlatan,” he said. “People didn’t believe a plant could do this.”

He will begin to assess the experiment’s success this fall. But his is not the only such experiment with trees.

In laboratories around the country, researchers are using detailed knowledge of tree genes and recombinant DNA technology to alter the genetic workings of forest trees, hoping to tweak their reproductive cycles, growth rate and chemical makeup, to change their ability to store carbon, resist disease and absorb toxins.

The research is controversial. Environmentalists and others say that because of the large distances tree pollen can travel, altered genes will migrate to natural populations, leading to damage to ecosystems and other unforeseen consequences.

Dr. Jim Diamond, a retired pediatrician who is chairman of the Sierra Club’s national genetic engineering committee, sees trees as a bastion of the natural world.

“It’s quite possible the stands of trees that are left will be domesticated new varieties of trees and the natural varieties will cease to exist,” he said. “Where do you draw the line?”

Dr. Meagher’s toxic-avenger trees are intended to remove heavy metals from contaminated soils in places where other forms of cleanup are prohibitively expensive. Because mercury is an element, it cannot be broken down into harmless substances; the Danbury trees release the diluted mercury into the atmosphere, where it dissipates and falls back to earth after a few years.

This has opened Dr. Meagher to the charge that he is engaged in a shell game, simply moving toxins from one place to another. He does not disagree, but says the risk of human exposure will be lower if the chemicals are not concentrated in certain areas. In time, he says, such trees may be deployed in places like Bangladesh and India, where mercury- and arsenic-laden drinking water has created a growing health crisis.

“I really believe we’re on the way to doing something great, and 20 years from now this is how these things will be taken care of,” he said.

Tree geneticists are acutely aware that public acceptance will depend at least partly on whether altered trees can be made sterile or their reproductive capacity tightly controlled.

Dr. Steven Strauss, a professor of forest science at Oregon State University, directs the Tree Biosafety and Genomics Research Cooperative, a group working on strategies for gene containment, including control of flowering cycles and sterility. He is also exploring ways to link desirable traits to traits that make a tree unlikely to spread.

“If you take a gene for herbicide resistance that you don’t want to spread, and you link it to a gene that makes a tree shorter and fatter, that’s a tree that’s not going to be very invasive,” he said.

Not everyone is convinced that these containment strategies will work.

“Any number of molecular geneticists will tell you, ‘Oh, these things are not a problem, we’ve got various ways of making sure the genes won’t function outside of their intended plants,’ ” said Dr. Yan Linhart, a biologist at the University of Colorado who studies the ecology and evolution of forest trees. “But just as confident as they are, you will find any number of ecologists and evolutionary biologists like myself who believe in the Missouri motto, ‘Show me.’ ”

Dr. Strauss and his colleagues view genetic engineering as a way to ease the pressure for logging in wild forests. If they can engineer trees in a plantation setting that grow faster and possess other desirable commercial traits, they say, then the industry will have less incentive to go after old-growth trees.

“It is possible,” said Dr. Ron Sederoff, a professor of forestry at North Carolina State University, “that we could engineer trees that are so much better for specific purposes that you wouldn’t want to cut down a natural tree.”

Among the goals is the creation of trees that produce less lignin – a substance similar to plastic that makes wood fibers stiff – so they can be turned into paper and lumber using fewer chemicals. Lignin production is important to trees in the wild, contributing to the strength of their trunks, but less so on a plantation, where trees will be harvested every few years. Researchers have discovered a link between low lignin and faster growth, which could make the engineered trees desirable for plantation foresters.

Still, this has not satisfied critics.

“Perhaps part of growing faster is that it won’t put all this effort into useless pine cones,” said Dr. Diamond of the Sierra Club, “so there’s no sustenance for the chipmunks. What if the tree in your backyard turns out to be a low-lignin tree but just happens to fall on your house or your car in a moderate wind? There are all kinds of risks besides just my aesthetic problem with remaking nature.”

Dr. Strauss is also trying to use genetic engineering to address climate change. He wants to create trees that would store more carbon in their root systems – “sequestering” it from the atmosphere, thereby cutting atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping greenhouse gas. In a project sponsored by the Department of Energy, Dr. Strauss and colleagues at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory are modifying tree architecture and cell wall chemistry to increase the amount of carbon stored below ground.

Much of the research relies on basic tree genetics – made easier by the sequencing of the poplar tree genome, a major effort in forest biotechnology whose results are to be made public this month. Scientists can now study classes of genes that affect absorption of sugars and carbohydrates, which in turn can change the chemical processes that affect the rates at which trees rot and release stored carbon.

“In the U.S., there are about 40 million acres of excess, surplus or idle agricultural land,” said Jerry Tuskan, a researcher at Oak Ridge, who led the effort to sequence the poplar genome. “If we could economically capture those and deploy fast-growing trees bred and created for carbon sequestration over a 10-year period, we could reach 25 percent of the Kyoto prescription for the U.S.” The Kyoto treaty, never signed by the United States, calls for reductions in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

The aboveground portion of the trees would be harvested every 10 years and used for ethanol, which Dr. Tuskan believes would offset the use of petroleum and, by extension, carbon dioxide emissions.

In another forest biotechnology project that has been making strides, researchers are using genetic engineering to produce a disease-resistant strain of American chestnut, a tree that once dominated Eastern forests but was decimated by the mid-20th century by a fungus introduced from Asia. The American chestnut project has proved among the least controversial, in part because the tree’s demise was caused by human intervention.

Elsewhere, researchers are using forest biotechnology to quicken the pace of traditional breeding experiments. At the University of Georgia’s Warnell School of Forest Resources, Dr. Jeffrey Dean monitors individual genes to learn how they react to changes like the addition of fertilizer or the presence of a fungus.

Dr. Dean said he had spent the past several years “philosophizing” about the genetic engineering of trees, weighing the pros and cons. “We probably don’t want to be thinking about genetic engineering as a magic bullet or cure-all,” he said. “There will be times where we may want the magic bullets, but they have to be applied in specific ecological contexts.”

Said Dr. Linhart of the University of Colorado: “One always needs to put into the equation biological caution and common sense. It’s a case-by-case basis. One has to not make sweeping judgments that say this particular type of activity is all good or all bad.”

 

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Vaporooter specs

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Health, Water  No Responses »
Jul 252004
 

Four years of effort to try and stop the City from putting the chemical “vaporooter” down the drain to dissolve tree roots illustrated that there are no known protocols for identifying, let alone removing,  some (many?) of the drugs and chemicals we are putting into water supplies.

Which is worsened:  for ONE of the chemicals in vaporooter,  a one-time test for presence costs $3000 (in 2003).

(Use “Search” on the blog (upper right corner) – enter vaporooter – for more info.)

We are very stupidly poisoning ourselves.  Some people develop MS, some develop cancer, others dementia, children are autistic (a word I had not heard until I was in my 40’s.  Today, very few people have not heard of autism).

How idiotic to think we can put carcinogens and teratogens into the environment and NOT have caner and developmental problems as a consequence.  We know about bio-accumulation, we know about synergistic effects, we know what has happened to fish in remote areas like the Arctic, and so on.  It seems we cannot add 2 + 2.

= = = = = = = = = =  = = = =

Re:  Metam + Dichlobenil  = Vapo-rooter:

Prepared by Paule Hjertaas for Sandra Finley   July 25. 2004

General statements:

–        Neither of the active chemicals or the breakdown products (except hydrogen sulfide) or listed formulants (inerts) have water quality standards either in Canada or the US.

–        Dichlobenil and its byproduct are very residual in water and cause problems in plants and soils at low levels.

–        Sanifoam vaporooter II lists 70 % secret inert ingredients in the metam portion and 50 % in the dichlobenil. That is a lot we know nothing about, other than that they are added to increase the effectiveness of the formulation.

Out of the NCAP fact sheets:

Neither fact sheet lists culling roots out of sewers as a use for either pesticide.

DICHLOBENIL:

–        p18:”Manufacturers of dichlobenil herbicides have found that water contamination, and subsequent movement of the herbicide, is a problem”

–        NO systematic monitoring for dichlobenil done in US ( likely absolutely none in Canada)

–        “also the most commonly detected herbicide in monitoring of rainwater in Italy”

–        “one study found that 75 % of the dichlcobenil applied to aquatic ecosystems volatilized”

–        also volatilizes off leaves, soil, etc therefore ends up in air

–        has “narcotizing”effect on many invertebrate species, gill irritation in damselflies, immobilization in caddisflies

–        breakdown product 2,6 dichlorobenzamide is “very water soluble and weakly absorbed by soil”

METAM

–  MITC is “very highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates” according to EPA.   (Metam changes into MITC very quickly.  If you are measuring for metam, you need to measure for MITC.   See notes below. )

Vaporooter

PMRA label quote:

EFFLUENT FROM TREATED LINES MAY BE HARMFUL TO FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC LIFE.

DO NOT USE IN CONFINED AREAS WITHOUT ADEQUATE VENTILATION.

SPECIAL NOTICE: SANAFOAM ® VAPOROOTER ® should not be used to treat roots in storm sewers or other drains where waste water will not be treated or controlled. 

(NOTE: This brings 2 questions:

1.  how and where do they use it? label also shows size of line and how much is used for each meter of line. According to label, use in untreated storm sewer water for instance is illegal.

2. what is the proper waste water treatment to remove metam, dichlobenil and byproducts from water?)

 As seen in the following, dichlobenil 50W( panna data base) has been cancelled by the EPA as an individual product since 1995, although by company request. Or Canada ( under that name anyhow)

U.S. Product Registration History for Dichlobenil 50w 

 

U.S. EPA Product Reg No: 34704-636

Top of Form

Bottom of Form
Product Registration Status: Cancelled
Approval Date: May 17, 1989
Cancellation Date: Dec 15, 1995
Cancel/Transfer Reason: Company request

Next is Exerpts From   (link no longer valid)

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET 

(updated 03/05/2001)

Douglas Products

& Packaging

1550 E. OLD 210 HWY. – LIBERTY, MO.  64068-9459

(816)-781-4250

PRODUCT NAME:              SANAFOAM® VAPOROOTER® (restricted use product)

EPA Registration No:  1015-70

Labels:

Sodium methyldithiocarbarnate                                                            30.00%

Inert ingredients                                                                                  70.00%

100.00%

Dichlobenil 50W                                                                                 50.00%

Inert ingredients                                                                                  50.00%

100.00%

Chemical Names:       Sodium methyldithiocarbanate, metam-sodium CAS 137-42-8

2.6-dichlorobenzonitrile, dichlobenil CAS 1194-65-6

also contains a small amount of isopropyl alcohol CAS 67-63-0

SECTION III – REACTIVITY DATA

The LIQUID is corrosive to brass, copper, zinc and aluminum.

( NOTE: I wonder what the pipes are made of?)

The product will decompose in extreme heat.  There is no indication of hazardous polymerization.

SECTION VIII – STORAGE

To extend product quality:

Avoid prolonged exposure to temperatures below 33* F to prevent package damage.

Avoid prolonged exposure to temperatures above 90* F to protect foam quality.  Never store near heat source or in direct sunlight.

(NOTE: Storage issues: not only it is hazardous to use and requires a number of precautions and trained personnel ( extra costs)  but it has particular storage needs which may increase the cost of using it in SK) Q: under what conditions  is it stored, and for how long?

——

Product Identification for Sanafoam vaporooter ii 

 

Basic Identification Information About This Product
MSDS and Product Label
U.S. EPA Product Reg No
Product Registration Status
Formulation
Acute Hazard Warning Label
Restricted Use Product
PAN Bad Actor Product:
No. of names this product is sold under		 1015-70
Active
Soluble concentrate
1 Danger
Yes
Yes
1 (See bottom of page for complete list of products)

(Note the danger label, highest acute hazard)

Toxicity for Sanafoam vaporooter ii 

 

Summary Toxicity Information for the Active Ingredients in this Product
For detailed chemical information click on the chemical names below 
Active Ingredients Chemical Name Percent PAN Bad Actor
Chemical 1		 Acute
Toxicity 2		 Carcinogen Cholinesterase
Inhibitor 		Developmental or
Reproductive Toxin		 Endocrine
Disruptor		 Acute Aquatic
Toxicity
Dichlobenil 1.96 % Not Listed Slight Possible No Moderate
Metam-sodium 24.3 % No

 

Indicates high toxicity in the given toxicological category. Indicates no available weight-of-the-evidence assessment. For additional information on toxicity from scientific journals or registration documents, see the “Additional Resources for Toxicity ” section of the chemical detail page for each active ingredient.
1. PAN Bad Actors are chemicals that are one or more of the following: highly acutely toxic, cholinesterase inhibitor, known/probable carcinogen, known groundwater pollutant or known reproductive or developmental toxicant. NOTE! Because there are no authoritative lists of Endocrine Disrupting (ED) chemicals, EDs are not yet considered PAN Bad Actor chemicals.
2. The acute toxicity reported here is for the pure active ingredient only and may not reflect the acute toxicity of individual pesticide products. The acute toxicity of this product can be found in the Product ID section of this page, the Acute Hazard Warning Label.

 NOTE: metam only becomes toxic when it is transformed into MITC, which it does readily.

 Metam

Water Pollution Potential and Criteria for Metam-sodium 

 

Water Pollution Potential
PAN Ground Water Contaminant Rating Insufficient Data
Physical Property Data Related to Water Contamination Potential
Water Solubility (Avg, mg/L)
Adsorption Coefficient (Koc)
Hydrolysis Half-life (Avg, Days)
Aerobic Soil Half-life (Avg, Days)
Anaerobic Soil Half-life (Avg, Days)		 –
–
3.17
0.02
1.00
Sorry, no water quality standards or criteria have been established for this chemical by the U.S. or Canadian governments; however, there may be criteria established for related chemicals.

Note: This table indicates that water testing for metam would be useless unless done very fast after use and in the proper place as the chemical hydrolises rapidly ( 3. 17 days)

It would be much more productive to test for MITC which has an average ½ life of 20 days. As a matter of fact, MITC is the active pesticide form( NCAP fact sheet), or test for 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile, dichlobenil which are residual a lot longer ( average 130 days for dichlobenil in water and at least 5-10 months in sediments. In Ireland, dichlobenil was found in groundwater at least 3 years after the pollution stopped.

Dichlobenil, in particular, has had severe aquatic ecosystems effects ( NCAP fact sheet)

Now we know that “pulse” exposures are very important for an ecosystem and also for human health. It may indicate where the contamination passed through. Even if we don’t find it now n water, it may be in sediments and may have passed through with a lot of devastation. Another complication. 

____

The following is out of the report you sent. Bold indicates important statements.

The report does not deal with water at all. We know that metam breaks down into several byproducts in soil, but there is not very much on whether the same happens in the same proportions in water, except that MITC has been identified.

18. Metam-sodium in aqueous solution produces MITC. Therefore, drinking water

administration of metam-sodium to laboratory animals may provide data relevant to the toxicological evaluation of MITC in air. The available drinking water studies did not, however, quantify the MITC present in metam-sodium treated water.

NOTE: It also produced MITC in air.

 If the water was sampled for metam and not MITC, they likely would not have found anything

20. Chronic exposure to metam-sodium via drinking water produced angiosarcomas in male mice and rats; the draft TAC evaluation document did not provide detailed data.

25. In the mouse drinking water study, a small increase in cutaneous fibrosarcomas was observed in the highest dose group of both males and females. When the data from both sexes are combined, the increase in tumor incidence (from 0% to 4.3%), is statistically significant (~’0.05). In conclusion, there is a suggestion of animal carcinogenicity, but the data are inadequate and further investigation is required.

28. Three developmental toxicity studies were reviewed, one in rats and two in rabbits. These studies showed decreased fetal body weight and size at doses that also produced maternal adverse effects such as decreased feed consumption and body weight gain. The maternal effects were noted in both species.

MIC (byproduct of metam sodium use)

29. MIC in Bhopal

30. In three controlled exposures of human volunteers to MIC, eye irritation and lacrimation were observed after exposures ranging from 0.5 ppm to 5 ppm for10 seconds to 50 minutes.

Health Effects of Other By-products of Metam Sodium Use

33. Brief summaries of the toxicity of hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, methylamine, and carbonyl sulfide are provided in the TAC evaluation. Based on the limited available exposure information, H2S poses the greatest exposure concern of these compounds. H2S is a highly toxic, imtant gas that causes respiratory symptoms and eye irritation after acute exposure. At high concentration it paralyzes the sense of smell. Airborne concentrations of 700 ppm and more cause immediate death through cytotoxic asphyxia.

Human Health Risks

34. Risks of exposure to metam-sodium were not assessed for this document because metam sodium is not present in air after agricultural use.

( This is an interesting statement as NCAP sheet as well as the 2003 CPR report on Secondhand pesticides indicate distinct measurements several days after use…)

36. A subchronic LOAEL of 1.7 ppm MITC was identified from a 4 week inhalation study in

rats, based on increased atrophy of the nasal epithelium in exposed animals compared to controls. A subchronic NOAEL of 100 ppb was estimated from the LOAEL by adjusting to continuous exposure and applying an uncertainty factor of 3. Benchmark dose analysis of  the dose-response data yields similar results.

40. DPR developed a NOAEL and REL for acute exposure to MIC. A LOAEL of 500 ppb for a 10 minute exposure was selected from the three available studies of human eye imtation (finding #30). This yielded an acute REL of 0.98 ppb.

42. Concentrations of hydrogen sulfide related to metam-sodium applications were measured in only one of the available studies. The report noted that the highest measured concentration, 76 ppb, is more than twice the California Ambient Air Quality Standard of 30 ppb. There is a need for better data and control of exposure at metam-sodium treated fields, similar to that noted for MIC.

45. The limited data available indicate that MIC and HzS concentrations may exceed benchmark risk levels during applications of metam sodium. However, most exposure studies assessed only MITC concentrations. Risk assessment of metam sodium use based only on MITC may significantly underestimate human health risks. The combined risk of exposure to the mixture of irritants is the most relevant benchmark by which risk management strategies for metam sodium should be measured. To adequately characterize the risk resulting from a metam sodium application, exposure data for all toxic breakdown products is necessary.

Further air monitoring studies to assess exposures resulting from metam-sodium application are needed, and should include assessment of MITC, MIC and HzS.

(NOTE: incomplete data then.- Sorry we did not know it was important….!)

 51. The Panel recommends that the Director of DPR initiate regulatory steps to list MITC as a Toxic Air Contaminant pursuant to FAC 3 14023(d). In addition, because MITC in air derives overwhelmingly from applications of metam sodium, with a smaller part contributed by metam potassium and dazomet, we recommend that these three pesticides be listed as TACs.

Other pesticides, not noted in this document, that break down to MITC should also be identified as TACs. Other breakdown products resulting from metam sodium use must also be considered. MIC and CS2 are automatically listed as TACs due to their status as Hazardous Air Pollutants. Hydrogen sulfide should be identified as a TAC, based on its known toxicity and release as a breakdown product of metam sodium.

(NOTE: IN order to determine effects on aquatic fauna and flora, it would be essential to get an idea of the final concentration in micrograms/L) although it is only relevant if the water from the treated lines ends up in the river.)

2004-07-20 Monsanto’s attempted bribery, Firing of Health Canada scientists

 Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Jul 202004
 

NOTE:  Shiv Chopra later wrote a book that documents his experience at Health Canada.   And I met one of the scientists, Margaret Haydon, at the Prevent Cancer Now conference in Ottawa.  These are very solid, down-to-earth people.

 

CONTENTS

1.   (DELETED)  Contact information (Ujjal Dosanjh is the new Minister of Health for Canada. Ian Green is the Deputy Minister. Prime Minister Paul Martin)

2.  BACKGROUND (Newcomers)

3.  ACTION

4.  MY LETTER TO UJJAL DOSANJH, IAN GREEN AND PAUL MARTIN

5.  CBC NEWS, July 15, 2004,  SCIENTISTS TO FIGHT GOVERNMENT FIRING

6.  CTV NEWS, JULY 15, 2004,  HEALTH CANADA FIRES OUTSPOKEN SCIENTISTS

7.  CTV NEWS, JULY 2002,  HEALTH CANADA WORKERS FEEL PRESSURED TO OK DRUGS

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

 

2.  BACKGROUND (Newcomers):

I was in contact with Nirmala and Shiv Chopra a few months ago when we were working on Monsanto’s history of corruption, part of the Roundup Resistant wheat battle.   The three scientists, Shiv, Margaret and Gerard,  blew the whistle on Monsanto over attempted bribery (a million dollars’ worth) to get Bovine Growth Hormone registered in Canada.  There was a Senate Hearing into the attempted bribery in 1998. I wanted to know more about the Senate Hearing.

3.  ACTION

The threat of being fired has hung over the heads of these scientists since 1998.  And now they have been fired.  Many Canadians are up-in-arms.

Today the new Minister of Health was announced.

I spoke with Shiv thinking that I’d like to see the official responsible for the firing, fired.

In Shiv’s opinion the problem is not with individuals but with the system.

People, organizations, and media are calling for a public inquiry.  I have used the Health Canada web-page to add my voice to the chorus.

You can send an email directly to each from the web-site:  (obsolete URL)

I also sent a letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin:  pm@pm.gc.ca

Please consider sending in your message.

News reports on the firings appears below.

Cheers!

Sandra

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

4.  MY LETTER TO UJJAL DOSANJH, IAN GREEN AND PAUL MARTIN

Dear Ujjal Dosanjh,

There needs to be a public inquiry into the firing of Canada Health scientists Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert.

Monsanto is an incredibly corrupt and corrupting company.

A person, in this case the Government, can be judged by the company they keep.

There are very cosy relationships.

Governments lose the ability to perform their regulatory role when they are in bed with corporations.

I object to my tax-dollars being paid out to Monsanto to fund their research.

The whole system needs to be cleaned up.  The best way to do it is through a properly mandated public inquiry.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

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

 

5.  CBC NEWS, July 15, 2004,  SCIENTISTS TO FIGHT GOVERNMENT FIRING

Thanks to Donna for the 2002 media report below.  And to Elaine for these reports.

C B C . C A   N e w s   –   F u l l   S t o r y :

——————————————————————————–

Whistleblower scientists to fight government firing,  15 Jul 2004

OTTAWA – Three scientists fired Wednesday by Health Canada after criticizing the department’s drug approval policies said Thursday they will fight the decision.

Steven Hindle, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, believes Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert were terminated because of their outspokenness vis-a-vis the approval process for new drugs.

The three were especially critical of Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone, whic h led to a Senate inquiry and a decision not to approve the drug. They also questioned carbadox, a drug used in pigs, and Baytril, which was used to promote growth in cows and chickens.

Haydon called a 2001 Canadian ban on Brazilian beef a political decision, and Chopra criticized former health minister Allan Rock for stockpiling antibiotics during the post-Sept. 11 anthrax scare.

Prior to the May 2003 discovery of mad cow in Canada, both Haydon and Chopra also warned measures to prevent the disease were inadequate. They had called for a ban on the use of animal parts in feed.

 

FROM OCT. 7, 2002: Restrict antibiotic use in animals: scientists

FROM NOV 19, 1999: Gov’t scientist suspended over dairy hormone debacle?

 

“They’ve faced various levels of discipline,” said Hindle. They’ve been verbally reprimanded, instructed not to speak to media and suspended, he added.

The three scientists weren’t fired from the Veterinary Drugs Directorate because of their public criticism, said Health Canada spokesperson Ryan Baker, adding the reasons for the dismissals are confidential and included in the letters of termination.

The scientists’ actions were applauded by NDP MP Pat Martin, who called the three “heroes.”

“If the government has signalled the way they feel about whistleblowing by firing these three prominent whistleblowers, it doesn’t bode well for the future of meaningful legislation…this is a huge step backward,” added Martin.

Hindle agrees that this action sets a bad precedent saying, “it will cause other public service employees, who have legitimate concerns, to keep those concerns to themselves.”

The union will take the case to the public service staff relations board for resolution. Its decision can be appealed by either side.

Written by CBC News Online staff

Copyright © 2004 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation – All Rights Reserved

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

 

6.  CTV NEWS, JULY 15, 2004,  HEALTH CANADA FIRES OUTSPOKEN SCIENTISTS 

Three Health Canada scientists who have repeatedly criticized the department’s drug-approval policies have been fired.

Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert, received letters of termination Wednesday.

A Health Canada spokesman denied the terminations have anything to do the scientists’ criticism of department policies. Ryan Baker said reasons for the dismissals were contained in letters sent to the employees, which were confidential.

Steve Hindle, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service union, also declined to list the reasons given for the terminations. But he said the union would seek to have the scientists rehired, and would use the letters as the subject of legal proceedings.

Hindle did say that his “first reaction” to hearing of the letters was that the dismissals were “retribution” because the scientists had often chosen to speak out.

Mike McBane of the Canadian Health Coalition agreed the three scientists were being penalized for trying to do their jobs. He calls the firings “an ominous signal from the government,” praising the scientists as “Canadian heroes.”

The three researchers have spoken out repeatedly in recent years about policy and procedures at Health Canada they were not comfortable with.

They said they were often pressured to approve unsafe veterinary drugs.

In the late 1990s, they publicly opposed rBST, also known as bovine growth hormone, a product that enhances milk production in cows. Their criticism led to a decision not to approve the drug.

The whistleblowers later criticized carbadox, a drug used to promote growth in pigs, and Baytril, used to promote growth in cows and chickens.

The scientists said they felt pressured to approve drugs even if they had reservations. They alleged that Health Canada was pressuring them because they in turn had been pressured by pharmaceutical companies to hustle through approvals.

The health agency has repeatedly denied the allegations.

Chopra said in 2002 that following their public complaints about the Health Canada approval system, he and his colleagues had been suspended without pay, been reprimanded and demoted.

Most recently, the scientists said they were ignored when they warned their supervisors proposed measures to curb mad cow disease were inadequate. They said they were also told not to discuss their views outside the government.

_______________________________

 

7.  CTV NEWS, JULY 4, 2002,  HEALTH CANADA WORKERS FEEL PRESSURED TO OK DRUGS

Note this article from July 2002 concerning the same scientists.

Pressures to approve drugs that some feel are unsafe are mounting at Health Canada. A group of senior scientists spoke to CTV News, going on the record with allegations they’re feeling pressure to approve certain veterinary drugs despite their concerns.

Four scientists at Health Canada say they’re feeling under the gun to approve certain drugs they feel may not be safe. The scientists claim that the pressure originates with pharmaceutical companies and is passed on to them by their superiors.

“We were being pressured to pass drugs of questionable safety because of the pharmaceutical companies,” scientist Shiv Chopra says.

Chopra, along with fellow scientists Margaret Haydon, Gerard Lambert, and Cris Basudde, say they are speaking out because the public needs to know what happens at Health Canada. They say they know that their jobs could be at stake, but they believe public safety is more important.

Chopra told CTV’s Newsnet that he and his colleagues have been given gag orders, been suspended without pay, been reprimanded and demoted for disputing orders to approve drugs.

“We’re being told to approve things even without receiving data from the company,” Chopra says. “If we don’t receive the date, then there’s nothing we can do. But we’re often told that the U.S. has approved it so we should approve it and we shouldn’t even ask questions.”

CTV News has obtained a letter outlining the concerns of the scientists sent to the government’s internal watchdog, the public service integrity office.

“We the undersigned employees at Health Canada,” the letter reads, “are being pressured by our supervisors to pass or maintain a series of veterinary drugs without the required proof of human safety.”

One example is a veterinary drug called tylosin, a drug used on chickens to kill bacteria. The drug is banned in Europe; some studies have shown tylosin can cause untreatable strains of bacteria that cause food poisoning and make the human body resistant to certain antibiotics.

While the drugs are for animals, there are fears the drugs could be making their way into the human food supply.

A senior drug evaluator alerted Health Canada of the possible risks. His concerns were dismissed and he was advised in a letter that his opinions weren’t supported by Health Canada. The drug was approved in May.

CTV News obtained a copy of that letter, reprimanding him for his approach in disagreeing with the approval process.

“Please consider this letter as a written reprimand,” the letter reads.

“Failure to address this behaviour, as would be evidence by another such episode, will result in more severe disciplinary action.”

Under Health Canada rules, pharmaceutical companies are required to prove their drugs are safe before they’re officially approved. For the companies to make back what they’ve invested in research and development their drug needs to be approved. These scientists say that’s what leads to pharmaceutical pressures.

Health Canada denies the allegations they’re caving in to pharmaceutical companies. “Health Canada staff are not being pressured by manufacturers,” says Health Canada’s Dr. Ian Alexander.

Still, Dr. Chopra feels the system breeds abuse.

“At risk is the public, our children, our community, our Canada,” Chopra says.

The scientists have written to every health minister in the last five years and have voiced their concerns internally at Health Canada.

They say it’s all been to no avail. Undaunted, they’re now calling for a full Senate investigation into why Health Canada is approving drugs that some of its senior scientists feel could one day harm Canadians.

2004-07-17 Pesticides, Water and Disease rates: Presentation to City Council July 19. (Vaporooter, plus)

 Water  No Responses »
Jul 172004
 

Here Vapo-rooter is used as a vehicle for informing people.  A later email will show how Al Taylor has used mecoprop in similar fashion, to push hard for reform. 

If you can use any of the material, please do.  A number of you have contributed to it by supplying input in the past. 

I will address Saskatoon City Council this Monday night (July 19) sometime after 8:00pm.

The presentation has to be shortened to 5 minutes, a real challenge!!

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

Last year Saskatoon changed from augering tree roots out of sewer lines, to contracting a company to dissolve the roots with a chemical pesticide called vaporooter.  I emailed my concerns to you.  The City has processed the concerns with respect and intelligence, for which I thank you.  The Environmental Committee has now suggested that I should present information to you. 

Vaporooter is a combination of  2 chemicals.  One is metam.  Metam is toxic.  It falls under the categories:

“acute toxicity; carcinogen (cancer-causing);  it is a developmental or reproductive toxin (it causes developmental problems in children, and affects the ability of men and women to have healthy children).”

 Vapo-rooter should not be the exterminator of choice, especially when an alternative exists.

City staff tested water coming out of the water treatment plant and found no traces of vaporooter.    And so the use of vaporooter will continue. 

I suppose I need to speak to the water sampling, but by addressing it,  I lend credibility to the idea that because vaporooter was not detected in the sampling, the decision to use it is sound.

 I could ask questions such as, “In what season was the water sampled?”  I would not expect samples drawn in October through to May  to show traces because vaporooter would not have been used during that time frame. 

But we are wasting time.  “No trace” is a red herring defence, as you will see.

Vaporooter should not be considered in isolation.  It will be more helpful for you to know about other efforts in the Province surrounding the dumping, run-off and leaching of chemicals into water sources.   First you should know the “why” behind the efforts.  Why are people mobilizing to action? 

There is a large body of  knowledge about the effects of chemicals on human health.   You may know about Agent Orange and its devastating effects on the health of Viet Nam war veterans. Agent Orange is a mixture of 2,4D and 2,4,5T.  

Chemicals affect health:  they are now found in every river, lake and slough in Saskatchewan.  Farmers spray them on crops and into the air.  Per acre, we city-folk apply more than the farmers.  Rain carries the chemicals into the waterways. 

Vaporooter is a new way to put more killing chemicals into the River, which is the water source for everyone downstream.  While it is evident that we breathe chemicals in, we are largely ignorant about the other ways in which chemicals enter our bodies.  We are also ignorant about what happens when chemicals start to mix together.  My experience with mixing chemicals comes from high-school chemistry labs.  With controlled quantities and ingredients, powerful interactions occur;  what happens when there is no control over which chemicals are mixing together and in what amounts?   regardless of whether this mixing occurs in the water or in our bodies?

Ignorance is not a good thing.   It should drive us to collect information and solve puzzles.

 I said you should know the “why” behind the efforts of other people in the Province to stop the dumping, run-off and leaching of chemicals into water sources. 

Recently a memoriam for a teen-age daughter appeared in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix.  The Mother is a friend of mine.  The parents explained the memoriam this way:

 “We are calling attention to the fact that individuals need to take responsibility for directing research, legislate carcinogens out of the environment, as well as making personal change. It is very sad that as of last week another one of my daughter’s friends has been diagnosed with cancer.  This makes 4 childhood friends who grew up & spent countless hours together at our home south of Saskatoon.”

These are 4 children from a small community, where school-class size is fewer than 20 kids in total. This is not a comprehensive list of the disease in the community, just the cases of 4 friends.  A woman in her 20’s walked into the River and drowned herself after also being diagnosed with cancer.

I have no idea about other diseases in the community.

 The community draws its water from the South Saskatchewan River after it has flowed through miles and miles of agricultural land. 

Common sense dictates that we should not be dumping more poisons, like vaporooter into our water supplies until we at least know what is happening.

 This community south of Saskatoon is not the only community seeking to find answers. 

At Christmas time I was in my home town, population 650 residents plus farms in the area.  This is what came up over kitchen- table talk.  I don’t wish to use names:

 1.  Farmer (XXJoe MagnusXX), funeral Dec. 20, age 63, cancerous brain tumor, cancer widespread, diagnosed in late summer.

2.  Farmer (XXDon HeintzXX), prostate cancer metastasized to the bones, age about 68, diagnosed in December, at July 1 is nearing the end.

3.  Farmer XXLeland MeierXX), funeral Oct/Nov,  age 63, prostate cancer metastasized.

4.  Farmer (XXHans ScholerXX), funeral Dec. 30, age 86, lung to brain cancer, diagnosed in Sept.

5.  Resident (XXFrank WetzsteinXX), bowel cancer, funeral in Sept.

6.  Resident (XXDavid KnorrXX), age 38, treated for extensive bowel cancer.

7.  Resident (XXRoxanne LivingstoneXX), malignant brain cancer, late 30’s or early 40’s, undergoing treatment, fighting for her life.

8.  Resident (XXBetty ScheidtXX) (Salvador), age 65 to 70, sinus cancer, on-going treatment, fighting for her life.

 Too many people in this community suffer from MS and Parkinsons, as well.

I remind you:  this is one small community and not a comprehensive list of deaths and disease in it.  It’s just what came up around the kitchen table, involving recent incidents.

 On June 30th, a dental hygienist was in my mouth.  She didn’t know me.

Somehow she began talking about her sister who died from cancer 2 years ago at age 24.  She continued, with perplexity, to say that 2 or 3 other young people from her home community had suffered similarly from cancer.  And a 29-year-old male has recently been diagnosed with Hodgin’s lymphoma.  Small community, high incidence.

The experience of these 3 communities supports what I heard from a medical doctor.

 Dr. Stuart Houston knows about the work I do.  Last summer he arranged for me to meet a radiologist that worked a year in Regina and then in Saskatoon.

Radiologists see diagnostic x-rays, ultra-sounds, scans, etc. from all departments of the hospital.  This radiologist described how they inadvertently discover slow-acting, but nevertheless lethal, cancer as a consequence of looking at an x-ray, for example that has been taken because of a broken arm.  In the opinion of this radiologist, there is an epidemic of cancer coming.  The culprit is the herbicides and other pesticides.  Who knows?  the epidemic may already have arrived.

 Saskatchewan buys 30% of the pesticides sold in Canada.

 That there is definitely a problem is also substantiated by this paragraph from an article in The Montreal Gazette, one week ago, Mon 12 Jul 2004:

“According to Canadian Institute of Child Health statistics, cancer in Canadian children under age 15 increased by 25 per cent during  the past 25 years.”

So what is being done? 

The Governments stone wall when it comes to chemicals, with one exception.

The Government of Quebec has legislated a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides.  Because the Federal and other Provincial Governments refuse to act, municipalities such as Toronto, Halifax, and Vancouver, have legislated their own by-laws to protect the health of citizens.  The number of municipal by-laws adopted has increased to a total of 66 across Canada. When all the current regulations and by-laws come into full effect the total number of Canadians protected from unwanted exposure to synthetic lawn and garden pesticides will grow to close to 11 million or approximately 35% of Canada’s population.

The bylaws will help to lessen the amount of chemicals that enter water supplies in Canada.

 Getting back to the communities here in Saskatchewan:  the disease rate in these communities is alarming.  You are asking how the evidence can be ignored? 

If a person from a rural community dies from cancer in Saskatoon or Regina, which is what happens (most patients come to the Cities for treatment) Statistics Canada records the death as having occurred in Saskatoon or Regina.  That is an incredible distortion which masks what is happening.

The Government is not going to act.  Communities are, of course, not without power, as evidenced by the number of bylaws that have been passed.   The failure to assume responsibility when it is your own children, relatives and friends who will suffer from inaction, is a sign of great decay in the society.  Communities are beginning to realize that the Government is not going to do the job for them.  How can they empower themselves?

 There is an inexpensive community self-assessment kit which sets out a scientifically-sound process for data collection and analysis.  The community is empowered by becoming informed and by assuming responsibility for solving the puzzle for themselves.  Are the deaths too high, is there a problem, and if so, what is it?

 We are working toward the establishment of these community-based research projects in rural Saskatchewan.  The data collection and analysis won’t take too long, once the groundwork is laid.

 Why should Saskatoon City Council know about the situation in rural communities?    One reason is that we all pay for healthcare costs which continue to escalate faster than Government revenues.    We MUST REMOVE the CAUSES of disease before we are out of money for education.    The inane idea that it is okay to “get” the diseases because we will find a cure to fix you,  is extremely inhumane, especially when it is children who are the most vulnerable. 

We must reverse the trend of putting more chemicals into our water supply.

Vaporooter may seem a small thing, but the small things add up.  Not only do they cause known harmful effects, but they mix with other chemicals, the effects of which are not known.  The water supply is a shared resource upon which we are all completely dependent.   It is regressive, not progressive to use vaporooter to replace augering. 

The following is a list of just SOME of the organizations in Saskatchewan that are addressing the use of chemical pesticides, in situations where alternatives exist.

The Mother I told you about earlier said it as well as can be said:  individuals need to take responsibility for directing research, legislate carcinogens out of the environment, as well as making personal change.

 The water that flows through our sewer lines flows back to the River.  It becomes drinking water again for others downstream.  We have no business dumping invisible, toxic contaminants into ANY water on this planet. 

A number of you are men.  Sperm counts in males in industrialized countries are down by 50% since the 1950’s.  This is well-known in Europe, not so well-known publicized here.  The Dept of Fisheries and Oceans finally conducted research in Canada which was released in January 2003.  They concluded that fish downstream from sewage treatment plants are “feminized”.

It’s from the drugs that enter the water through urine, birth control pills, insulin, anti-depressants, who knows what, PLUS chemicals.  Hormone disruptors.  Saskatoon City Staff said there was no detectable vaporooter in the water coming out of the sewage treatment plant.   Feminized fish and sterile men tell you that there are many contaminants in the water that are not detected.

2004-07-02 RR Wheat: Syngenta to end biotech crop research in UK, last of big biotech research to pull out of Britain, move to USA. Blow to Universities.

 Food, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Jul 022004
 

This is interesting.  Biotech campanies are being forced out of the UK.

Re-location is to the United States.  Think of the implications of that. 

1)  “Syngenta was the last company to have a significant biotech crop research capability in Britain, following decisions by Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer Cropscience to rein in operations.” 

  BUT 

2)  “The U.S. National Corn Growers Association estimates the U.S. corn industry has lost $250 million annually because of the EU ban on biotech foods.” 

SO:  the U.S. has a favourable climate for the chemical/pharmaceutical/transgenic companies, BUT production of the crops will mean that the U.S. is an island unto itself.  They will kill their own markets, in the same way as the large Canadian markets for canola were destroyed by the introduction of GMO canola.

UNLESS the transnational corporations, through their purchased influence in the American Government, the WTO, and elsewhere can force the regulators to drop the bans on GMO’s.   Can they out-manoeuvre and outlast consumer resistance?

============================= 

Thanks to Elaine: 

Planet Ark

UK: July 2, 2004 

LONDON – Syngenta will close its genetically modified crop research operation in Britain and move the work to the United States, where the business climate is more favourable, the Swiss chemicals giant says. 

The company plans to shift biotech crop research from Jealott’s Hill, west of London, to North Carolina, with the loss of 130 jobs.   Jealott’s Hill, which employs a total of 900 people, will concentrate on research into agrochemicals. 

“We need to have the research and development work done in the marketplace where we can most effectively do business,” said spokesman Andrew Coker yesterday. 

Europe has resisted the introduction of genetically modified crops, in contrast to the United States where strains of grain, soybeans and other crops modified with foreign genes are now widely cultivated. 

Syngenta was the last company to have a significant biotech crop research capability in Britain, following decisions by Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer Cropscience to rein in operations.  

The firm’s move, first reported in the Times Higher Education Supplement, is a blow for UK academic research, given Syngenta’s sponsorship of much university work, said Michael Wilson, a professor of plant biology at Warwick University. 

Equity analysts, however, said the decision was of limited commercial significance, since the biotech work would continue in a different geographical setting. 

Shares in Syngenta were trading 0.7 percent higher at 105.75 Swiss francs in a steady European stock market by 10:15 a.m. The stock was underpinned by better-than-expected quarterly results from U.S. rival Monsanto on Wednesday which reflecting strong demand from farmers for herbicides. 

ENVIRONMENTALISTS CHEER 

The environmental group Friends of the Earth welcomed Syngenta’s decision and said the company had misjudged the market for genetically modified crops in Britain and Europe. 

In May, the European Union lifted an effective five-year ban on biotech crops which had angered its top trading partners, including the United States. 

(INSERT:  This is a very misleading presentation of the information.  The EU did NOT lift the ban on biotech crops, as the next paragraph will show.  The U.S. was angered because the lifting of the ban applied ONLY to one product:  imported sweet corn used to feed livestock.  The biotech industry remains thwarted in getting its wares into Europe.) 

But the end to the ban applied only to a variety of imported sweetcorn (INSERT: that is fed to livestock – it is not for human consumption). EU farmers still cannot grow the biotech corn themselves. 

(INSERT:  In May, Marian from the NFU (National Farmers Union) had looked at the impact of this on stock market prices.  On the day of the announcement, Syngenta’s share price declinced in Europe while simultaneously rising in the New York market.  I wonder whether it’s because the North American news service presented information as it is in this article, which makes it look like the lifting of a ban, when really it wasn’t?  The European media were more analytical and saw through “the spin”?) 

The U.S. National Corn Growers Association estimates the U.S. corn industry has lost $250 million annually because of the EU ban on biotech foods. 

(INSERT: the argument is consistently presented that Europe is to blame, whereas the blame truly lies with producers, on the Corn Growers in this instance.  It was stupid of them to grow crops that the markets do not want.  If they did it out of ignorance, or because of propaganda, that is unfortunate, but the fact remains that they chose to grow the crops that the markets don’t want.  There is a kind of arrogance in the argument.) 

Through genetic modification, scientists have developed crops that are resistant to disease, insects and weedkillers and supporters of the technology say it will benefit farmers and well as the environment. 

(INSERT:  statements like this do not reflect the reality which is that genetic manipulation is NOT being used “for the common good”, but rather to benefit a few transnational corporations, at the expense of the greater public good.) 

But critics fear risks to human health as well as the environment and claim the biotech companies controlling the crops threaten farmer independence. 

Story by Ben Hirschler 

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

2004-06-14 RR Wheat: Another big hit – $112 million pay out over Contamination of Corn (Aventis StarLink corn)

 Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Jun 142004
 

U.S. Farmers to Get $112 Million for GE Starlink Corn Contamination,  GM WATCH

“The National Corn Growers Association called the settlement “a step in the right direction, but payments amount to little more than ‘a drop in the bucket’ for farmers who experienced significant losses because of the StarLink disaster.”

“The class action bar is teed up for the next big thing, and that’s a force that can stifle innovation. You could push products off, such as biotech wheat, even when the public is ready for them.” – Thomas Reddick

(COMMENT:  my interpretation of the last sentence is confirmation that the industry is sitting on RR wheat until we are “ready” for it.

The industry states that “innovation” is good and that products such as RR wheat will come onto the market.  The only problem is that “the public” isn’t educated enough yet, to be “ready” for the products.  Isn’t that ironic?!  It is precisely because I am educated about RR wheat that I am NOT “ready”, and never will be!)

 

Background first, then the article: U.S. Farmers to Get $112 Million .   

1.    What the Starlink fiasco tells us

The Starlink fiasco started when in October 2000 traces of an Aventis GM corn [maize] called StarLink showed up in taco shells in the U.S. even though it was not approved for human consumption. It led to a massive recall of over 300 food brands. The ‘StarLink’ gene has also shown up unexpectedly in a second company’s corn and in US corn exports. The Starlink fiasco has wide implications for the use of GM crops in farming.

 

BIG CONTAMINATION FACTOR

“In Iowa, StarLink corn represented 1 percent of the total crop, only 1 percent. It has tainted 50 percent of the harvest.” ABC NEWS November 28, 2000

Dale Farnham, an Iowa State University agronomist:

“No one knows how far the corn pollen can travel, some studies have said a quarter of a mile”

“Aventis CropScience Wednesday was at a loss to explain why another variety of corn besides its StarLink brand is producing the [StarLink] Cry9C protein.”

United Press International November 22, 2000, Second corn variety producing Cry9C

 

On the possibility of unintentional mixing of GM and non-GM post-harvest, agronomist Dale Farnham says: “There are no safeguards.”

“The US Department of Agriculture claims to know where the maize ‹ banned from all food use globally and only recently approved for US exports ‹ is located. Aventis, the French firm which developed the genetically modified maize sold throughout the US maize belt in 1999 and 2000, says it knows, also. So do I: StarLink maize is everywhere.” US agricultural journalist Alan Guebert writing in Farmers Weekly, December 8, 2000

(INSERT:  this (the transgenic crop is everywhere) is the Canadian experience with RR canola, too.  It is also consistent with the observation made in the 2004 documentary “Life Running out of Control” by Bertram Verhaag.  Genetic pollution behaves in a way that is opposite to chemical pollution: over time genetic pollution proliferates (rapidly), whereas chemical pollution can be broken down.)

BIG LEMMING FACTOR… F-F-F-F-FASHION!

Donald White, a University of Illinois plant pathologist, on why US farmers have gone for GM corn: “…what happens is there is a herd mentality.

Everyone has to have a biotech program.” White’s view chimes in with a University of Iowa study on why farmers were growing GM soya which concluded, “It is interesting to note….that increasing crop yields was cited by over half the farmers as the reason for planting GMO soybeans, yet yields were actually lower”.

(INSERT:  farmers receive huge amounts of propaganda from the companies.

Listen to a rural radio station in the spring time.  Farm publications have been bought up by corporate interests (documentation from Eduard distributed in our network earlier).  Drive the highway north of Saskatoon:  large road-side billboards.  From our experience we know that it is very difficult to get a questioning word about the companies printed in mainstream media.

The companies advertise in the main newspapers.  The companies fund construction of facilities AND the research at the University Dept of Agriculture.  Education is heavily biased in favour of the companies.

The graduates from the University go to work for the Government Depts of Agriculture.  Govt “Ag Reps” work with the farmers.  The Government contributes heavily to the work of the companies (documented in earlier emails).  And the companies have been able to make contributions to the political parties.

There is a neat ring that controls the information received by the farmers (and the public).  The U.S. Government is heavily infiltrated by the chemical companies which are the GE companies (documented in earlier emails).

IN CONCLUSION I would suggest that the “leaders” in society have aided and abetted in the creation of the “herd mentality”.)

BIG ECONOMIC FACTOR

US corn exports to big buyers are being hurt: “…traders in Tokyo said on Wednesday the discovery that StarLink`s Cry9C protein had spread to another variety of corn only deepened doubts that U.S. corn can be kept free of genetic modification.”

But in 1999 *even before Starlink* US corn exports to Europe dropped by 96% because the US cannot provide non-GM corn.

BAD FUTURE FACTOR 

US corn farmer and GM seed salesman, Nebraska, Dec 2000: “….you guys [US Government] created this monster; you clean it up. I have learned my lesson.

No more GMO crops on this farm ‹ ever.” [quoted in UK ‘Farmers Weekly’ December 8, 2000]

All quotes unless otherwise indicated taken from:

Corn leaving bad taste in world markets as GMO worries build Reuters,  November 22, 2000

——

2.    NCGA:    StarLink lawsuit moving closer to resolution Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News June 14, 2004 

Corn farmers who filed claims last year as part of the class action lawsuit against StarLink corn may soon receive compensation for their losses, according to the National Corn Growers Association.

Thousands of growers who grew corn between 1998 and 2002 were eligible to receive a recovery from the “Non-StarLink Farmer Actions” settlement. After repeated inquiries by the Nebraska Corn Board, the Garden City Group a New York-based law firm, revealed that more than 150,000 claims were filed and just 6% of those claims were deficient, NCGA reported, adding that growers who filed deficient claims should have received a letter explaining how to correct the claim.

“The StarLink dilemma was an unfortunate situation for all corn growers, not just those who used the StarLink product,” NCGA said in a statement. “Corn prices dropped significantly as a result of the situation and that impacted the entire industry. We’re glad to see that qualified corn growers will finally be recouped for some of the lost market opportunities they experienced.”

NCGA called the settlement “a step in the right direction, but payments amount to little more than ‘a drop in the bucket’ for farmers who experienced significant losses because of the StarLink disaster.”

StarLink Logistics and Advanta USA agreed to pay a total of $112.2 million, including interest, to fund the settlement for non-StarLink commercial corn farmers nationwide. The Garden City Group estimated that farmers who qualify for a settlement would likely receive $1 to $2 per affected acre in the form of a prepaid debit card.

“StarLink shows that the biotechnology industry has to worry about more than consumer sentiment,” Thomas Reddick, a St. Louis-based attorney who chairs the American Bar Association’s agricultural management committee, told Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News. “The class action bar is teed up for the next big thing, and that’s a force that can stifle innovation. You could push products off, such as biotech wheat, even when the public is ready for them.”

2004-06-06 Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships (P3s)

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category)  No Responses »
Jun 062004
 

PREAMBLE

This is in follow-up to my email,  “Hamilton Water – costs $2800 to Find out.  This is how PPP’s work”,   Mon 31/05/2004.  In which I wrote:

“Governments promote Public Private Partnerships (PPP’s or P3s) – I am told they have a Department now for this purpose”.

… Today I wanted to find out:  does such a Department really exist?   What I found is the “Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships”.

——————

P3s are usually associated with projects such as water supply (Hamilton example), and Toll Highways.   Our work on RR wheat has been a lesson on P3s:  another lesson (in addition to Hamilton) on how P3s work in reality (not as in the rhetoric).

IS the relationship of the Govt of Canada with companies like Monsanto a P3 (PPP or Public Private Partnership)?  … I don’t see a distinction between the production of concrete objects such as water infrastructure and highways, and investment in research, so to me the relationship with Monsanto IS another example of a P3.  In the end there are products (research, RR canola, RR wheat) through a collaborative and integrated effort between industry and government.

As you know,  I think that this “partnering” between Government and business is not in the public interest.  The Government loses its ability to regulate.  Systems of both governance and business become corrupted.

Sometimes I wonder if something is wrong with my head?!  What I see is the wielding of fear as an instrument of coercion. … Turn this over to corporations or you will lose your healthcare and social programmes (Government can’t afford both).  Corporations are on the “leading edge”, not Governments, so we HAVE TO go this route or we will languish in poverty.

OTHER COUNTRIES will take our markets so we have to do this.

The attitude is also based on ignorance.  (Not that I have a corner on the truth!)  Refer to author Jane Jacobs, “Systems of Survival:  a Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics”.  We fail to distinguish between the functions of Government and Commerce at our peril (discussed in earlier emails).  P3s fly full in the face of this wisdom.

In the promotion of P3s, the critical questions are not discussed.  Real cost information is not disclosed (a big part of the Meridian dam battle was to force realistic cost and benefit figures on the Government, to refuse to let them get away with over-stating benefits while under-stating costs, thereby justifying the project).  In Hamilton, a City Councillor has to pay $2800 to obtain actual costs of the contract between the City and the company to which the water service has been contracted. In P3s, as with Government funding and promotion of genetic manipulation, there has been a paucity of public disclosure, debate and decision.  Government and big business have worked together, made P3s a reality.  It is delivered to you and to me, a fait accompli.

I have copied some information from the “Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships” below.  By putting “Government of Canada P3s” into the Google search engine more information is available  if you want more.

You make your own decisions.   Enough from me.

Cheers!

Sandra

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

CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

I was told that the Government of Canada has a Department or agency for the promotion of P3s.  I do not know if there is such a Department.  If not, there may as well be one, based on the web information for the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships.  See the list of “Public Members” and the “Sponsoring Companies” copied further down.

—————————–

http://www.pppcouncil.ca/aboutPPP_why.asp

“In an increasingly competitive global environment, governments around the world are focusing on new ways to finance projects, build infrastructure and deliver services. Public-private partnerships (PPP’s or P3’s) are becoming a common tool to bring together the strengths of both sectors. In addition to maximizing efficiencies and innovations of private enterprise, PPP’s can provide much needed capital to finance government programs and projects, thereby freeing public funds for core economic and social programs.

Three countries stand out as world leaders in the number and scale of PPP’s – the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States (primarily in water & wastewater), although many other countries have successfully implemented PPP projects and are benefiting from the results. What tends to distinguish the leader countries (UK and Australia) is that PPP activity is conducted through a comprehensive government program rather than on a one-off basis as we have tended to do in Canada and the USA.

Canada has developed considerable expertise in the PPP field, both domestically and internationally, and increasingly this is being done through coordinated provincial programs. A recent Council publication entitled “100 Projects: Selected Public-Private Partnerships Across Canada,” shows that PPP’s have become a successful vehicle to deliver public services in over 25 distinct sectors, at all levels of government. Canada has many high profile projects, such as the Confederation Bridge, Highway 407 Electronic Toll Route, Moncton Water Treatment Plant, St. Lawrence Seaway Commercialization, Kelowna Skyreach Place and Bruce Nuclear Power Plant lease. They demonstrate that PPP’s continue to be valuable contributors to our country’s economic health.”

———————-

Public/Non-Profit Members

(link no longer valid)

Alberta Finance

Alberta Infrastructure

Alberta Transportation

Association of Colleges of Applied Arts & Technology of Ontario (ACAATO)

Avalon East School Board

BC Buildings Corporation

BC Construction Association

BC Legislative Library

BC Ministry of Finance

BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management

Bridges (Marine Technology Alliance Building & Marketing Initiative)

Calgary Board of Education

Calgary Health Region

Canada Lands Company

Canadian Construction Association

Canmore Economic Development Authority

Capital Health Authority

Centennial College

Centre for Addiction & Mental Health

City of Chilliwack

City of Cornwall

City of Cranbrook

City of Edmonton

City of Guelph

City of Hamilton

City of Kelowna

City of Leduc

City of London

City of Mississauga

City of Moncton

City of Ottawa

City of Peterborough

City of Port Moody

City of Prince George

City of Surrey

City of Thunder Bay

City of Toronto

City of Vaughan

Conseil des Écoles Publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario

Consulting Engineers of British Columbia

Council of Ontario Universities

Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan

Fraser Health Centre Project

Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère des Transports

Gouvernement du Québec, Secrétariat du Conseil du trésor

Gouvernment du Québec, Société immobilière du Québec

Government of Canada, Industry Canada

Government of Canada, Infrastructure Canada

Government of Canada, National Defence

Government of Canada, Public Works & Government Services

Government of Canada, Transport Canada

Halifax Regional Municipality

Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation

Jasper National Park

McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) – Planning Office

NB Business New Brunswick

NWT Municipal & Community Affairs

Ontario Financing Authority

Ontario Good Roads Association

Ontario Hospital Association

Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Ontario Ministry of Culture

Ontario Ministry of Finance

Ontario Ministry of Health & Long Term Care

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Ontario Ministry of Transportation

Ontario Sewer & Watermain Construction Association

Operating Engineers’ Pension Plan

Peterborough Regional Health Centre

Provincial Health Services Authority

Queen’s University School of Urban and Regional Planning

Regional Municipality of York

Sault Area Hospital

Toronto Grace Hospital

Toronto Medical Laboratories

Town of Canmore

Town of Goderich

Town of Markham

Town of Richmond Hill

University of Alberta, Finance & Administration

University of British Columbia Campus & Community Planning

Wilfrid Laurier University

William Osler Health Centre

Yukon Department of Economic Development

—————————————-

Sponsors

(link no longer valid)

The Council thanks the following sponsor members for their continuing support:

ABN-AMRO Bank N.V., Canada Branch

Aecon Group Inc.

AMEC Inc.

Bennett Jones LLP

Bilfinger Berger BOT Inc.

BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.

Bombardier Transportation

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Borealis Capital Corporation

Brookfield LePage Johnson Controls

Bull, Housser & Tupper

Carillion Canada Inc.

CH2M HILL Canada Limited

CIBC World Markets Inc.

CIT Structured Finance

Davis & Company

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Ernst & Young Corporate Finance Inc.

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP

Goodmans LLP

Government of Ontario

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP

Macquarie North America Ltd.

McCarthy Tétrault LLP

McMillan Binch LLP

NATIONAL Public Relations

Ogilvy Renault

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

P3 Advisors Inc.

Power LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers Securities Inc.

RBC Capital Markets

Scotia Capital Inc.

Securicor

Serco Group, Inc.

SNC-Lavalin Inc.

Torys LLP

United Water

2004-04-10 Tom Wolf, Health Canada scientist threatens to sue me. Response – the mafia uses threat of broken bones.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Take back the University  Comments Off on 2004-04-10 Tom Wolf, Health Canada scientist threatens to sue me. Response – the mafia uses threat of broken bones.
Apr 102004
 

CONTENTS:

  1. 2012 DEC 6,  UPDATE   (INPUT FROM PAULA AND MY RESPONSE).

INCLUDES (2006)  EMAIL FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PMRA, KAREN DODDS, DEFENDING THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST BETWEEN WOLF AND THE INDUSTRY,  (PURSUANT TO MY MEETING WITH HER IN OTTAWA)

2.   (2004)  LETTER FROM LAWYER  THREATENING TO SUE ME

3.   (2004)  MY RESPONSE TO LAWYER

4.   (2004)  THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE,  Scientist (Tom Wolf) faces funding conflict accusations

5.   (2004)  MY LETTER TO CITY OFFICIALS

6.   (2004)  MY STATEMENT

= = = = = = = =  = = =

1. (2012)  UPDATE, DEC 6  (INPUT FROM PAULA AND MY RESPONSE)

Hi Paule, Geraldine and Sharleen,

I added this to the documentation on the Wolf case.

It is a fine example of George Orwell’s “newspeak”, done by Karen Dodds, Executive Director of the PMRA at the time I called the conflict-of-interest on Wolf.

I do not know how these “doctors” (Dodds and Wolf) get away with these actions.

BACKGROUND  (Paule, you will remember this):

At a SEAC (Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee) meeting, in response to a statement I made about the de-registration by the PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada) of a chemical combo called mecoprop (and the fact that they gave the industry 9 years to get the product off store shelves,) Wolf  jumped on my statement and said that mecoprop had NOT been de-registered, and he should know because he works for the PMRA.  I subsequently sent the announcement about mecoprop from the PMRA to SEAC members, to refute Wolf’s claim that mecoprop had not been de-registered.

The following is the email I received from Karen Dodds (Executive Director of the PMRA, responsible for the regulation of pesticides), after meeting with her and her second-in-command, Connie Moase, in Ottawa.

As I say, Orwellian newspeak.  She says that Wolf is not and was not an employee of the PMRA.  But they are the ones who paid his salary and costs.  She completely avoids the question of the  up to $10,000 per contract that Wolf was simultaneously receiving from CropLife (lobbyists for the pesticide industry) and had been for at least 8 years.

(2006) EMAIL FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PMRA, KAREN DODDS, DEFENDING THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST, WOLF AND THE INDUSTRY  (PURSUANT TO MY MEETING WITH HER IN OTTAWA)

Received:  Fri 01/09/2006 1:44 PM

From:  Karen Dodds [Karen_Dodds AT  hc-sc.gc.ca]

To:  sabest1  AT  sasktel.net

cc:  Eileen Quinn

SUBJECT:  Follow-up   TOM WOLF FROM DODDS  MOU

Ms. Finley,

At our meeting on Monday, we discussed a number of issues.  I wanted to provide you with information quickly on one specific issue.   You raised a concern regarding a federal public servant, Dr. Tom Wolf, thought to be a PMRA employee, and a potential regarding conflict of interest.  I did some investigation and would like to provide you with the information we have on file here at the PMRA.

Dr. Tom Wolf was (and may still be) a Research Scientist employed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) at their Saskatoon Research Centre.

He is not, and was not, an employee of the PMRA or Health Canada.  PMRA had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with AAFC concerning research into spray drift and application technology of pesticides, an area in which Dr. Wolf has expertise and has conducted research.  Under this MOU, PMRA provided funds to AAFC to support the scientist and specific work.

Conflict of interest was explicitly dealt with.  It was clear that Dr. Wolf would not be in a decision-making role, but would be providing advice to PMRA.  For example, he contributed to the development and implementation of spray drift modelling.  Under the MOU, Dr. Wolf retained the right to conduct normal collaborative research activities as an AAFC researcher.

The MOU was effective from April 2002 to March 31, 2005.

AAFC has a Research and Development program, known as the Matching Investment Initiative, which encourages and supports collaborative work between AAFC and industry.  As a Research Scientist at AAFC, Dr. Wolf may have participated in this program with industry collaborators.

Avoiding and preventing situations that could give rise to a conflict of interest is a responsibility, not only of managers in the public service,  but of all public servants.   We also want to avoid and prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest and I have taken note of your concerns in this regard.

Karen L. Dodds, Ph.D.

Executive Director/Directrice exécutive

Pest Management Regulatory Agency/Agence de réglementation de la lutte antiparasitaire
Health Canada/Santé Canada

Tel.: (613) 736 3708
Fax: (613) 736 3707

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Sandra,

you may find this interesting. I came across it googling for pesticide complaints- SK Ag.  I will have to phone them to see if they even still have inspectors as there is no mention of any complaint mechanism anywhere on the site.

Not only that, but it was written by Tom Wolf, presumably the same guy who was heading the Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee (sub-committee) when the pesticide bylaw was defeated a few years ago.

I found this tonight after not being able to find anything ever before. I underlined the important parts which is that they are more worried about image and that the goal justifies the means I guess.

Anyhow below is what I am planning to write on the SNAP web site.

How much protection from drift is there in SK?

Spray Drift – Causes and Solutions (Last Update: April 1997) SK agriculture.  (Link no longer valid)

Self-propelled high clearance sprayers can travel at speeds up to 35 km/h (22 mph). Faster travel speeds cause a finer, more drift-prone spray to be produced, which stays in the air longer. The net result is a finer spray more exposed to winds that can move it off-target. Research tests have confirmed that faster travel speeds increase drift, evenwhen applied with a coarser spray (Figure 4). “Some herbicides and insecticides are prone to vapour drift and can seriously hurt animals and humans. Vapour drift can occur even when there is no particle (droplet) drift, and even dry spray deposits can send vapours into the atmosphere. Vapour drift increases with air temperature, therefore the application of volatile products should be avoided on, or just preceding, hot days.” It is also recognized that: ‘At no or very low wind speeds, the drift cloud can move in an unpredictable direction and cause damage.’

The document link is below if the above link  does not work.
(Link no longer valid)    http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=11ba5e46-8c3b-4115-88e7-26d9749b05ac

MY REPLY TO PAULE:

Thanks Paule.  Interesting that it was written by Tom Wolf.

Yes – – Tom was the full-time Govt scientist responsible for buffer zones in crop spraying.  He worked directly with the industry (CropLife) – – they paid him up to $10,000 per contract, and at the time I happened on it, (2004)  he had been on their payroll for 8 years.  How much he collected per year and in total, not known.  I don’t know whether he was ever stopped from working for them.

The buffer zones were substantially reduced from what had been originally established (I want to say to one-third but don’t want to trust my memory on that).

Background for Geraldine and Sharleen:

As a member of SEAC (Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee – – purpose, to make recommendations to City Council on environmental matters)  Tom volunteered to chair the sub-committee tasked with making a recommendation to Saskatoon Council re a pesticide bylaw.  I happened to attend a meeting of SEAC at which other members of the sub-committee thanked Tom profusely for hosting their meetings at his home, complete with refreshments AND writing up their recommendation to Council all on his own, they didn’t have to do a thing.

The recommendation was:  more education, no bylaw.

Donna found reference to Wolf’s work in the industry publication “Groundswell”.  Work he was paid to do (as mentioned), while simultaneously being an employee of the Agency that is supposed to regulate the industry (the PMRA, Pest Mgmt Regulatory Agency) – – according to what he said at the SEAC meeting (” . . . I should know because I work for the PMRA”) .

Although I did not have speaking rights at this particular SEAC meeting, I managed to place Wolf in a position where he was required to answer the question whether he was the same Tom Wolf as in the Groundswell publication.

All of which led to a front page story in the Star Phoenix (charging conflict-of-interest) and a letter to me from Tom’s lawyer, threatening to sue me for defamation.  The correspondence with the lawyer, my reply and the newspaper article are posted on my blog  (below).

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

2. (2004)  LETTER FROM LAWYER THREATENING TO SUE ME

Mon 04/10/2004 4:17 PM

This will advise that I am Stephen Nicholson’s assistant.

Please find inserted a copy of the letter, the original of which is being forwarded to you via courier this afternoon.

Karen D. Woolsey

kwoolsey  AT  sasklaw.com

This message and any attachments are confidential and may be subject to solicitor-client privilege. It should only be read by the person to whom it is addressed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify us by reply and delete the message. Thank you.

Woloshyn & Company

Barristers & Solicitors, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

tel: (306) 244-2242 // fax: (306) 652-0332

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

October 4, 2004

DELIVERED VIA COURIER AND E-MAIL

Sandra Finley

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

200 Scotiabank Building · 111 Second Avenue South · Saskatoon, SK · S7K 1K6

· Telephone (306) 244-2242 · Fax (306) 652-0332

Dear Madam:

Re: Tom Wolf    File No.: 28231.1 – 10

Please be advised that we act as solicitors on behalf of Tom Wolf.

Our client has provided us with a copy of an e-mail which you have sent to various members of the Saskatoon City Council, the Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee (SEAC), the Auditor General, and various media outlets (INSERT: I didn’t send anything to the media, explained in response to lawyer).

Some of the statements in your communications, regarding Mr. Wolf, are untrue, and defamatory. As a result of these statements, Tom Wolf’s character, credit and reputation in the community has been injured.

We further understand that you may be speaking to City Council this evening, and we wish to ensure that you will not be repeating those untrue statements during that presentation, nor in any future communications or presentations.

Specifically, your communications have used the phrases “who is on the payroll of the chemical industry” and “Mr. Wolf gets paid by the chemical industry and he seeks funds from them”. These statements are false. Mr. Wolf does not receive payments from the chemical industry.

You are free to disagree with any policy position expressed by Mr. Wolf, but you must do so using accurate and truthful information. Further, you cannot attack those positions through the use of misleading and inaccurate attacks on his personal character and reputation.

At this point, Mr. Wolf has not ruled out the possibility of commencing legal action against you for the previous statements that you have made which are untrue and defamatory. However, we wish to put you on notice that any further similar actions by yourself will result in legal action being commenced against you without further notice.

Please govern your actions accordingly.

Yours truly,

WOLOSHYN & COMPANY

STEPHEN J. NICHOLSON

SJN:kdw

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

3. (2004)   MY RESPONSE TO LAWYER (Tom Wolf is a “doctor” but I couldn’t bring myself to address him as such.)

Dear Stephen Nicholson:

I am in receipt of your registered letter, October 4th and email copy of same.

The email I sent to City Council contains information provided verbally by Mr. Wolf himself at the September 23rd meeting of the Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee (SEAC), in reponse to the written question handed to him (approximate wording), “Is this the same Tom Wolf as whose work appears in the communications of CropLife? If so, he is in a serious conflict-of-interest”.

In his response, Mr. Wolf said that he was seconded from Agricultrue Canada to work at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).  Mr. Wolf  specifically stated that he has been paid by CropLife and that he seeks funding from them. He specifically stated that he has written a manual for CropLife. I gather that he provided the amount of one payment ($10,000.00) to the reporter from the Star Phoenix, as I interpret the newspaper article regarding the conflict-of-interest.

If “Mr. Wolf does not personally receive payments from the chemical industry”, as stated in your letter, then he should not state that such is the case. Whether one calls the payor CropLife or the chemical industry is a matter of semantics.

I question the intent of your statement “We further understand that you may be speaking to City Council this evening (etc.)”. Presumeably you, in your experience as a lawyer would know better than I, that sensitive matters involving individuals will be dealt with in camera. That would be routine.

If intended for me, the statement “Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.”, I respond that you sent the communication to me. I am free to do with it as I wish, except to alter it.

In light of the preceding points and other statements in your letter, I view your letter to me as an intimidation tactic. Gangsters bully people through threat of broken bones. The chemical industry has an established history (I will be happy to provide specific examples should you desire them) of attempting to intimidate through the threat of harm to the person’s finances and well-being, utilizing the legal system as the weapon.

For the record:

I did not send my complaint to “various media outlets”. I did send it to the other affected parties you named – the City, SEAC and the Auditor General (who issued an extremely critical report on the PMRA in October 2003 and who therefore has an interest). I also sent it to my personal email network.

The matter reached the Star Phoenix because a City reporter saw the vaporooter item on the Sept 23rd meeting agenda for SEAC. He knew of my interest in the subject from an earlier meeting of SEAC which he had attended. It was quite natural for him to phone me.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

(INSERT:   in 2006 I was in Ottawa and met with the then-Head of the PMRA, Karen Dodds,  to challenge the conflict-of-interest.  (And I wanted to see what kind of people these Government employees are – they must know the disease outcomes associated with pesticide poisoning.  Certainly, they have received lots of documentation.  How can they side with the industry and ignore the consequences, especially for children?  Incredibly cold-hearted.)

The reply from Karen Dodds (an email) explaining that it is okay for a full-time Govt scientist to be simultaneously working for the industry because  the PMRA signed a “memorandum of  understanding” with Tom Wolf appears in #1 above.  Note that Tom Wolf was working on the mandated buffer zone for sprayed crops,  something that the industry wanted reduced.  The buffer zones were later reduced VERY significantly.

Tom Wolf  attended a presentation by David Suzuki at a National Farmers Union Convention.  He (whiningly)  asked Suzuki what University employees were supposed to do, they need to raise money.  Suzuki didn’t bite.   In his inimitable forthright form, he said simply, “The University has sold its soul to the devil.”)

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

4. (2004)  THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST ACCUSATION

Sept 29, 2004

Scientist faces funding conflict accusations

By Rod Nickel of The StarPhoenix

A research scientist who helped draft recommendations against banning pesticides in Saskatoon receives project funding from the chemical industry. That puts Tom Wolf squarely in a conflict of interest, charges environmentalist Sandra Finley. Wolf, the vice-chair of the environmental advisory committee, heads an internal task force examining whether Saskatoon should ban lawn pesticides.

The task force’s recommendation that the city educate the public about the health risks of pesticides instead hasn’t yet received council approval. Finley sent a mass e-mail to city politicians and administrators (INSERT: I just went to the City web-site and sent an email from it. I didn’t know it would be “broadcast” so well from there!) Tuesday, calling for Wolf’s removal from the environment committee. Wolf, a Saskatoon-based scientist with the federal Agriculture Department, also works with the federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). Specializing in pesticide spray drift, he says it’s necessary to work with chemical manufacturers, who form a trade association called CropLife Canada.

For eight years, pesticide manufacturers have helped fund Wolf’s Research projects that involve their products. Wolf says funding is typically less than $10,000 per project, but declined to provide a funding total. While the contributions help fund his work, he said he has never collected personal income from the manufacturers, in accordance with rules for federal employees. Wolf has also written course material for CropLife members for no charge. Finley confronted Wolf at the environmental committee ’s meeting last week. “It’s just clearly a conflict of interest,” she said Tuesday. “I don’t have vendettas against people but we have gone down this slippery slope.”

Finley has repeatedly lobbied the city for a pesticide ban and to reduce the number of chemicals it dumps into the river. Tuesday afternoon, Wolf said he was considering legal action. “I feel personally undermined,” he said. “I find the allegations are mean-spirited and inaccurate. “I am not pro-pesticide by any stretch.” Wolf works with the city on composting initiatives and, on his own time, co-ordinates a community organic garden in City Park. “Her accusation is simply inappropriate,” he said. “Every person who serves in any capacity has views. You can’t deny that of anyone. The question is do we force our views on others or do we allow a democraticprocess to determine policy?”  Wolf said his association with pesticide manufacturers has no influence on his position on a civic ban. City council briefly considered a pesticide education campaign earlier this year, but referred it, along with a question from Coun. Owen Fortosky about phasing out pesticides over two years, for more study by a sub-committee. The issue ended up back with the environmental committee last week, which repeated its preference for an education campaign and sided against the two-year phase-out. Fortosky said he wasn’t previously aware of Wolf’s connections with CropLife “Off the top of my head, I think (Finley) may have a good point,” he said. “You want things to be as forthright as possible and everything to have no possibility of conflict, whether it’s real or an appearance of it.” Wolf’s situation doesn’t fit the city’s definition of a conflict of interest because he sits on an advisory committee, said city clerk Janice Mann. The city only asks the mayor and councillors to disclose properties and companies in which they have financial interests because they ’re the decision-makers, she said.

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

5.  (2004) MY LETTER TO CITY OFFICIALS

TO: Saskatoon Mayor Atchison and Councillors Terry Alm, Donna Birkmaier, Bev Dubois, Owen Fortosky, Myles Heidt, Elaine Hnatyshyn, Maurice Neault, Tiffany Paulsen, Glen Penner, Gordon Wyant and City Staff

COPY TO: Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee (SEAC)

SUBJECT: Conflict-of-interest, Letter from lawyer, Vapo-rooter, Phased-in Pesticide Bylaw

I have provided background information about the chemical industry to the City in the booklet “VAPO-ROOTER, CHEMICAL PESTICIDES AND THE DYNAMICS OF CHANGE” under headings such as:

•  CHEMICAL/PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY, A HISTORY OF LIES AND CORRUPTION
•  CHEMICAL/PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IN GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITIES AND CITIZEN ORGANIZATIONS
•  COMMON TACTICS USED BY THE INDUSTRY.   …

Sound decision-making requires …

•  the abandonment of naivete: you must know how the chemical/pharmaceutical industry works. They are very slick at placing people in influential positions (reference “All the President’s Monsanto Men” in the Vapo-rooter booklet).
•  clear understanding of priorities: there are no “stakeholders” when the health of human beings and the environment are at high risk. In this instance, those who legislate have only one interest to represent, that of the common good. Private and self-interest are secondary when the air, water and soil upon which we are all dependent become the pawns. …

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

I was criticized for raising the issue of Tom Wolf, an employee of Health Canada (PMRA) simultaneously taking large amounts of money from the industry his Department is supposed to regulate. My response:

From the Star Phoenix article it appears that the reporter interviewed Tom.  My reading is that the information in the article is from Tom himself – the $10,000.00 from CropLife for one of his projects, he’s been doing projects for CropLife for 8 years, etc..

I have read an issue of the CropLife publication “Groundswell”. One Article is related to Tom’s work on chemical spray nozzles. The question asked of Tom at the SEAC meeting was “Are you the same Tom Wolf as in the  CropLife publications?”.  Tom supplied the information related to the question.

Again, he is the source. And again, I am left with the question: which statements I have made are inaccurate?

Do I treat Tom unfairly? The system, the Government, Tom’s supervisors, people, should not allow Tom to simultaneously work for the Regulatory function of Govt and the international lobby organization for the chemical and biotech industry – CropLife.

If I do not speak up, who will?

I know that what Tom is doing is not right. And I know that the PMRA is Not performing its regulatory function. Many children, their families, the educational system, and the medical system live LIFE LONG with the consequences of our failure to stop conflicts-of-interest such as this.

If someone in another City discovered a similar conflict and did not do What they can to stop it, I would severely criticize that person. If I am well-informed, complain loudly about an issue, and then do nothing when the ball happens to fall in my court, what am I?

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

6. (2004) MY STATEMENT

There is no joy or satisfaction in bringing distress to another person. It takes time, a hot bath, and the company and distraction of friends to let go of the tension after sending out the conflict-of-interest emails re Tom Wolf.

“The system” is indeed messed up. As with all dynamic systems:

•   The longer you fail to take the right corrective action, the deeper the system goes into decay.
•   The greater the deterioration, the more drastic and difficult the measures that are required to bring the system back to stability.
•   There comes a point after which the deterioration cannot be reversed.
For whatever quirks of fate, I happened to be the one who was present when Tom’s behaviour was incongruent. I noticed the incongruency when others didn’t, because of the work I have done on roundup resistant wheat, etc.  – I happen to know the environment that has been created by the Government and the chemical/GMO industry – the “Public Private Partnerships” embraced by the Privy Council Office (PCO).

I believe that we are slowly but surely turning things around. The hard battles (being uncomfortable with what seems to be an attack on a person) have to be fought, as well as the easy ones. I, and others, would not have to be doing this, if the Government was doing its job and if it wasn’t so riddled with corruption.

/Sandra

 Older Entries  Newer Entries