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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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