**
**
Home [1] | | What's New | Contact Us
Curmudgeon's Corner, 2002 Archives
. Role of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan war, January 22, 2002 . Fax to P.M.
on his "psychological terrorism" in the House, Feb. 7,2002 .
FAX to Senate Cmt.members on Proposed Nuclear Waste Act, April 30,2002 .
E-Mail to Nat'l Pollutant Release Inventory Working Group, Aug. 23,2002 .
Fax to Prime Minister re: Strengthening Canadian Democracy, Aug. 27, 2002 .
Fax to Ontario Energy Minister-Rethinking Electricity System, Nov. 8, 2002 .
E-Mail to Provincial Premiers re Health Care Report, December 3, 2002 .
Comments on proposed new food irradiation regulations, December 12,2002
2007 Current 2006 Archives 2005 Archives 2004 Archives 2003 Archives 2001
Archives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax to the Honorable Art Eggelton, Minister of National Defence (January 22,
2002)
I. We wish to express our strong opposition to the use of Canadian Forces in
a combat search and destroy role in Afghanistan. Our forces should be used
solely for humanitarian and peace keeping purposes.
We insist on this for several reasons:
Canada has been in the forefront of modern humanitarian and peacekeeping
efforts, especially under United Nations auspices, and, as such, has
achieved an enviable reputation for distinguished service as a highly
compassionate and advanced force in the world for maintenance of peace under
very difficult circumstances.
Use of Canadian Forces in the combat stage is likely to do serious damage to
Canada's credibility as an "honest broker" during and subsequent to future
conflicts in various parts of the world. Compromising the Canadian
peacekeeping and humanitarian role in Afghanistan would be nothing short of
a tragedy of world class proportions.
The massive United States military forces are more than capable of handling
the combative aspects of the destruction of the remaining Afghan Taliban and
terrorist network holdouts. Use of Canadian soldiers in that effort makes
absolutely no military or logistical sense. Any minor contribution made by
Canadian Forces in that connection would be far, far outweighed by the
negative consequences attendant to the loss of our credibility as a nation,
independent of major world powers.
We recognize the fact that, since the end of World War II, Canadian Forces
have, on occasions, been used in what are essentially combat roles. However,
the objective must be to accelerate the transition from the combative role
to the peacekeeping and humanitarian role, not the reverse. Engaging in
purposeful armed conflict in Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world, can
only undermine that objective.
It appears to us that the Government of Canada has taken this unfortunate
path in an attempt to score political points both within Canada and with the
United States Government. As such, this is a totally unnecessary effort that
needlessly puts Canadian lives at risk. Furthermore, deploying our forces
without adequate transportation facilities and proper desert uniform attire
underscores the folly of the mission and the hasty, unthinking, political
decisions made by the Government of Canada.
II. Canada must abide by the rules of modern warfare and respect the letter
and spirit of international conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners
of war.
We insist on this for the following reasons:
The President of the United States formed a coalition, which includes
Canada, for the purposes of conducting a war on terrorism. Members of the
coalition have continuously referred to the military action in Afghanistan
as a war. The conduct of a "war" carries with it special and important
responsibilities on the part of those engaging in it. One of those
responsibilities is the scrupulous adherence to provisions of the Geneva
Convention and other internationally accepted agreements concerning the
treatment of prisoners taken captive during the conduct of war hostilities.
The United State Secretary of Defense refers to these prisoners as "illegal
combatants" and "detainees," in an obvious and transparent attempt to
circumvent responsibilities under the international agreements. If the U.S.
is in violation of international law, as seems to be the case, Canada should
not become an accomplice in what appears to be a criminal act.
We were deeply offended by the "about face" taken by the Government of
Canada on this issue. The initial position that Canada would abide by the
provisions of international law was the correct position.
Yours truly,
Phyllis Robbins: Retired Teacher
Walter Robbins: U.S. World War II Veteran
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAX to Prime Minister on his "psychological terrorism" in the House of
Commons
February 7, 2002
Dear Prime Minister:
You could not be more wrong in your conviction that those who raise
questions about the application of international law in the current Afghan
situation, are somehow “on the side of the terrorists.” I would say that
your kind of thinking constitutes a form of psychological terrorism of it’s
own! That kind of thinking is dangerous and coming from the top political
figure in this country, it is downright appalling.
Like it or not, until recently the Taliban was the Government of
Afghanistan. It matters not that the regime was downright ugly in the
extreme and not recognized by Canada or most of the rest of the world. It
matters not that it was harboring a group of unsavory, violent people. The
Taliban soldiers had every right to resist any forces threatening it’s rule
over the land.
Unhappily, there are other countries in the world whose governments are in
power as a result of non-democratic methods. Our “friends” in Pakistan (who
also harbor plenty of unsavory, violent people), and China come under that
heading. Would you take the same position if the action were in their
backyards?
If, as Mr. Bush declared, this is a WAR on terrorism, that strongly suggests
that those who raise questions about the application of Geneva Convention
just may have a point!
And anyway, where were you and your government over the past several years
as the reports of Taliban human rights abuses and the use of torture against
the people of Afghanistan kept coming in? Why did you not try to do
something about it? Why were you not up front and center at the U.N.,
visibly and vocally demanding that international action be taken against
those barbarians?
If Canadian troops were detained, as are the Taliban fighters, in similar
circumstances, I have a feeling that you would be shouting the virtues of
the Geneva convention to the high heavens.
Yours Truly
Walter Robbins
Kingston, Ontario
U.S. World War II veteran
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAX and E-Mails to Members of the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
From: Walter Robbins April 30, 2002
Subject: Recommendations for the Nuclear Waste Fuel Act (Bill C-27)
Dear Senator:
I regret that I have been unable to appear in person before the Committee.
It is my hope that you would consider my input as briefly stated below:
. The Waste Management Organization (WMO) should be an independent public
agency which reports directly to the Parliament of Canada. Such an agency
would operate with maximum transparency and a high degree of public
involvement in the decision making process.
. The Bill must recognize the strong possibility that very long-term,
on-reactor site waste storage could become a reality. Monitoring and public
safety and security are major concerns, (not addressed in the original
version of the proposed legislation). I urge that the bill require all
reactor sites to possess a waste retrievable, sub-surface hard bunker system
designed to withstand attempts at incursion and/or destruction. At each
reactor site, such a waste facility would be monitored and guarded by
scientific staff as well as trained anti-terror military personnel, along
with all other possible maximum security controls in place and continuously
upgraded.
. The Bill should provide that high-level nuclear waste, as well as weapons
grade fissionable materials such as plutonium, shall not be imported into
Canada.
. The WMO should, at any time, be able to consider advanced alternative
nuclear waste management technologies that likely will become available. For
example, in several countries, significant progress is being made in
accelerator transmutation of nuclear waste (ATW).
. In view of the lack of public acceptance as well as the high-security and
public safety risks involved in waste transportation, consideration of the
options for centralized above ground permanent storage and underground
geological isolation should be removed from this Bill.
. Although it may not be appropriate for inclusion in this Bill, I would
like to go on record as advising the expeditious phase-out of the production
of high-level nuclear waste The continued existence of nuclear power
reactors poses an unacceptable threat to the safety and security of the
public. Renewable and safe energy alternatives are available.
Thank you for your consideration,
Walter Robbins
796 Hillside Drive, Kingston, Ontario, K7M 5Y8
robbins@kingston.net
Walter Robbins is author of "The Great Canadian Nuclear Waste Saga"
(1980-2002), full text free online at http://www.web.net/~robbins.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail to Members, Environmental Working Group on Canada's National
Pollutant Release Inventory August 23, 2002
Environmental Working Group
Environment Canada
Dear NPRI Environmental Working Group,
This has been a terrible Summer in Southern Ontario, with many days of
polluted, foul, ugly air. As a senior citizen who suffers from upper
respiratory problems, I am more than a little upset with those industries
which resist inclusion in Environment Canada's National Pollutant Release
Inventory (NPRI). The public has a right to know the source of all
pollutants, so that individuals and groups can take appropriate action.
I understand that the NPRI is an essential tool for citizens who are
concerned about pollution being released in Canada. As a database for
analysis and decision making, the NPRI helps ensure that all Canadians will
have access to the facts regarding pollution in their own communities and
neighborhoods.
I am pleased that Environment Canada is undertaking this important program,
and for its consistent effort to make improvements to the NPRI.
However, it is nothing short of incredible that the NPRI does not already
provide a complete and comprehensive reporting on all environmental
pollutants, including greenhouse gases and many dangerous chemicals.
I am informed that the environmental community in Canada has selected
several representatives to bring an environmental and health perspective to
the discussions on changes to the NPRI through the Multistakeholder Work
Group on Substances. I am writing to support the submissions made by this
delegation. On the advice of the Canadian Environmental Network, I urge you
to:
Add greenhouse gases for reporting to the NPRI. Greenhouse gases, such as
CO2, are altering the global climate. Canada is the second largest producer
of CO2, caused by reliance on burning fossil fuels to heat homes, for
transportation and fossil fuel production.
Remove the exemption for upstream oil and gas facilities. Currently, the
upstream oil and gas industry is exempted from reporting to the NPRI
activities related to drilling and operating oil and gas wells. Environment
Canada should require this industry to report the pollutants that they
generate.
Combine the listing for nonylphenols, octylphenols, and their ethoxylates
with the standard 10-tonne threshold trigger. If after the first year of
reporting the standard threshold does not result in adequate coverage, this
threshold be reduced to one tonne.
Add carbonyl sulphide for reporting to the NPRI.
Add ‘total phosphorus’ for reporting to the NPRI.
Add nickel, beryllium, barium and thallium for reporting to the NPRI in the
2003 reporting year, at a reporting threshold of 5 kilograms manufactured,
processed or otherwise used during a year instead of the standard 10-tonne
threshold. Environment Canada is recommending that action on these
substances be deferred for at least one year. These are substances of major
concern.
Put acetone back onto the NPRI list.
Require the reporting of various species of Criteria Air Contaminants, as
outlined by the Work Group. Environment Canada is proposing to require that,
as of 2003, various species of these CACs be reported. This is essential to
allow for regional air quality modelling.
Remove the exemption for mining activities. Currently mining activities are
exempted from reporting to the NPRI. This is a major hole in NPRI reporting.
For example, in the U.S. the mining sector is the largest reporter to the
Toxics Release Inventory (the U.S. equivalent of the NPRI).
On a personal note, I strongly believe it is of the utmost importance that,
if not already the case, you include the category of radioactive pollutants.
I refer to the continuing low-level radioactive emissions and releases from
nuclear reactors as well as nuclear and non-nuclear pollutants from
ancillary processes (e.g., uranium mining and refining). These substances
are frequently overlooked in any discussion of pollution, probably because
our human senses are incapable of detecting ionizing radiation in the
environment. Radioactive pollutants can have profound and long-term negative
effects on the health of humans and other animals.
Sincerely,
Walter L Robbins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAX TO PRIME MINISTER ON NEED TO STRENGTHEN FAILING CANADIAN DEMOCRACY
August 27, 2002
Dear Prime Minister Chretien,
In my view, the most important legacy you could achieve over the remaining
eighteen months of your term of office, would be to begin to strengthen
Canada’s democratic institutions and processes.
Today, Canada functions essentially as a one party state, with virtually no
prospect of change under current arrangements. Our political system has few
meaningful checks and balances. Executive power is concentrated to a
dangerous degree in the Office of the Prime Minister. Our outdated “first
past the post” electoral system is fundamentally flawed, effectively
disenfranchising large number of Canadians. The Canadian Parliament has
become largely redundant. Increasingly, Canadians are opting out of the
political life of the nation. The Canadian public is in the grip of extreme
cynicism over these issues. Something must be done.
I’m sure you would agree that attainment of a fuller democracy in Canada far
outweighs any personal agendas as well as the political fortunes of yours or
any other political party. The most profound responsibility of the
Government of Canada today, is to safeguard democracy and to redress it’s
weaknesses as the highest of priorities.
Now is the most opportune time for you, as a retiring Prime Minister, to
demonstrate the kind of extraordinary vision and leadership urgently
required to begin the process----a process which could very well turn out to
be the salvation of the Canadian federation and provide you with a legacy of
unparalleled stature in the history of this nation.
Sincerely,
Walter Robbins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax to Ontario Energy Minister on rethinking Ontario Electricity System
The Honorable John Baird
Minister of Energy
Government of Ontario
Toronto, Ontario
November 8, 2002
Dear Mr. Minister,
It is unquestionably time to rethink the entire Ontario electrical energy
situation. Failure to do so on a priority basis is likely to result in
further major hardships to the Ontario public.
Over the course of the past century, electricity has become an essential
public energy resource. Much of our day to day activity is totally dependent
on a continuous supply of electricity. Without it, we would return to the
condition of a rather primitive society. At this point in time, there really
is no adequate substitute for electricity to power the kind of society we
now have. Even a possible future hydrogen economy would depend on a
full-scale electrical production system.
In view of it's importance, electricity, though not in the same essential
(to life) class as clean water and air, can be characterized as a "public
good."
As such, the actual generation and distribution of electricity are
activities which must be treated as public utilities, under full public
ownership and control.
The primary motive of the private sector is profit and return on investments
to shareholders. For many profit making private organizations, the public
good may be important, but is not and probably cannot be the primary driving
force, value system or motivator for a successful business enterprise.
Furthermore, public regulation of private entities cannot change those
priorities or assure the safe, reliable and equitable creation and
distribution of electricity, the "life-blood" of our economies, large and
small.
Only the public sector, through government, accountable to the entire
public, can be expected to provide an electrical system which, first and
foremost, adheres to "public goods values."
This is not to say that the public cannot or should not use the resources of
private, profit making organizations for selected and specific inputs to the
public electrical system. Such a system requires the use of products and
some services which are best provided by appropriate private organizations,
under carefully administered contractual arrangements.
But legislative framework, policy formulation, planning systems and the
full-scale operation of that electrical system must be completely in the
hands of the public through it's elected representatives.
So far we have only seen a few of the possible problems that can occur when
even a segment of the electrical system is turned over to a market driven
private sector. The system as it now "functions," and as it seems to be
emerging is so complex and convoluted as to defy understanding on the part
of even the experts, let alone ordinary members of the general public, such
as myself.
There is no doubt that the public electrical system as it once operated
under the aegis of Ontario Hydro, resulted in many negative consequences..
But to conclude from that experience, that any form of public ownership
must, ipso-facto, fail, is absurd. We can learn from our mistakes and put
into action a public electrical utility system which will operate under
sound management principles–a system made for Ontario, of which we can all
be proud.
Without going into detail here, I would summarize my vision of the future as
having a public electrical utility system in Ontario which would put the
needs of people ahead of profits of large companies which tend to play both
ends against the middle across the Canadian-- U.S. border.
Such a system would set as an objective, the phase-out of energy produced
from extraction of non-renewable resources, e.g., coal, oil, uranium. A well
conceived public system would assure that the use of renewable and
sustainable resources and energy conservation rapidly becomes the basic
foundation for electrical energy generation and transmission. We need a
public system that would assure the continuous, reliable and safe supply of
electricity to all Ontarians at a reasonable cost and at fair and equitable
prices.
I sincerely hope that your Government does not think that by simply sending
refund checks to the public you will do anything to solve Ontario's present
electrical energy problems, or even your own political problems that have
resulted from your unfortunate decisions of the past.
Again, it is time to rethink the entire system. In my view that system must
be reshaped with the principle of public goods as the primary value.
Sincerely,
Walter Robbins
796 Hillside Drive,
Kingston, Ontario
K7M 5Y8
walt@grandfolkies.com
copies: Opposition energy critics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mails to Provincial Premiers on need for Statemanship on Health Care
December 3, 2002
Dear Premier:
The release of the Romanow report on the future of health care provides each
of you with a momentous opportunity to transcend the confines of your own
political boundaries and to work toward the interests of all Canadians. This
is not a partisan political issue; rather it is one which calls for
statesmanship of the highest order.
Your effort, along with the Federal Government, must be a collaborative and
positive one. It is quite clear that the Canadian people simply will not
permit you to indulge in such counterproductive behaviour as placing your
own political jurisdiction ahead of the common good of all the people of
Canada.
The choice is yours. Please make the right one!
Yours truly,
Walter and Phyllis Robbins
796 Hillside Drive,
Kingston, Ontario
K7M-5Y8
walt@grandfolkies.com
Recipients:
Provincial Premiers
Prime Minister Chretien
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on proposed new regulations to extend the use of food irradiation
in Canada
December 12, 2002
To: The Hon. Anne McLellan
Minister of Health,
Canada
Dear Minister:
Please consider the following as a public submission to the formal hearing
process on food irradiation.
I am absolutely amazed and deeply offended that you would place the public
health in jeopardy by proposing new regulations to extend the use of food
irradiation in Canada to include ground beef, poultry, shrimp and prawns,
and mangoes.
By doing so, you are ignoring or dismissing significant scientific findings
which conclude that irradiated food can be quite unsafe for human
consumption.
As is well known, the irradiation process produces "free radical" compounds
in food. These compounds will increase the amount of oxygenation throughout
the human body. This process, over time, will damage the immune system and
suppress the body's ability to make good use of foods and supplements which
are high in anti-oxygenation properties.
The last thing cancer victims (such as myself), need, is food which can
assist in the growth of cancer cells.
There have been dozens of studies conducted since the 1950s that suggest
irradiated food may not be safe for human consumption. In these studies, lab
animals have suffered premature death, a rare form of cancer, fatal internal
bleeding, stillbirths and other reproductive problems, chromosomal
aberrations, liver damage, nutritional deficiencies and low weight gain.
Not surprisingly, governments, under intense pressure from the "zapping
industry" have wrongly dismissed these studies on the grounds that they are
old, inconclusive or poorly designed.
I have been informed that a 1998 German study reveals a chemical in
irradiated food can actually damage DNA. That study is not going to be so
easily dismissed.
The study confirmed what safe-food advocates and many pioneering researchers
have known for more than 30 years: Exposing food to ionizing radiation can
lead to the formation of bizarre new chemicals called "unique radiolytic
products" that can cause serious health problems. One such chemical, known
as 2-DCB, caused "significant DNA damage" in the colons of rats that ate the
substance. The chemical - - which, ironically, is a well-known "marker" for
determining whether food has been irradiated - - has never been found
naturally in any food on Earth.
The study was conducted under the auspices of two prominent pro-irradiation
organizations. It was performed at one of the most prestigious food
irradiation labs in the world, the Federal Research Center for Nutrition in
Karlsruhe, Germany. And it was co-funded by the International Consultative
Group on Food Irradiation, a United Nations-sponsored organization that
promotes food irradiation worldwide.
It yielded conclusive results, and was performed under the guidance of
cutting-edge scientific protocols. Despite the study's clear findings and
high quality it was distorted and dismissed by the World Health
Organization, which has endorsed the irradiation of any food at any dose - -
no matter how high.
In the long run, the public health damage from irradiation is likely to
dwarf any short term commercial benefits accruing to the zapping zealots. We
look to Health Canada to protect the public health. I implore you to reject
any further extension of food irradiation and to roll back that which has
already been foisted upon the public without it's knowledge or consent.
Regards,
Walter Robbins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedback welcomed [2]
Last revised: 28 October 2016. Conditions of Use.
Copyright © 2001-2016 by The Jack Horntip Collection.
1: http://www.horntip.com
2: mailto:walt@grandfolkies.com