Saturday, August 22, 2009

Petition about Canada Health

Tom Haynes-Paton
Date: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:44 am
Subject: They're Lying about Canada health--petition tomhaynespaton


Hello,
Please help our neighbours to the south who have no medical coverage or
treatment available.
You might wish to note the section below:

"How health care works in Canada

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health-care-abroad-canada/?scp\
=15&sq=health&st=cse


"(Interview with) Theodore R. Marmor is professor emeritus of public policy and
political
science at Yale University and a former fellow of the Canadian
Institute for Advanced Research. He is the author of “The Politics of
Medicare” (Aldine Transaction, 2000). He spoke to freelance writer
Sarah Arnquist."
Thanks,
Tom








They're lying about Canada















Ricken Patel - Avaaz.org to me show details 7:21 AM (4 hours ago) Reply
Images are not displayed.
Display images below - Always display images from avaaz@avaaz.org








Dear friends,






American corporations are spreading lies about Canadian health care to kill
Obama's health plan -- and with it his whole movement for change. Sign a message
to Americans about how Canada's system really works - and how much we value it.
Let's set the record straight!



Obama's movement for change in the US is at risk of collapsing -- in large part
because of lies about the Canadian healthcare system!


It's incredible, but Obama's health plan, and with it his entire
Presidency, could be derailed if big corporations and the radical right
manage to convince Americans that our health system is a nightmare
similar to "Soviet Russia".



We need a huge popular outcry to show the truth -- how proud and
grateful we are in Canada to have a public healthcare system that works. Sign on
to the message to America and forward this email -- if enough of us sign, we'll
cause a stir in US media and help change the debate:



http://www.avaaz.org/en/reform_health_care



US healthcare is run by large corporations - it's the most expensive in
the world, but ranks 37th in quality, and 40 million Americans can't
afford any care at all. It's an awful system for people, but
corporations make enormous profits, so they're fighting to keep it. If
they win and Obama fails, the Democrats could lose the Congress in
elections next year. If this happens, progress on every global issue is
endangered, from climate change to the war in Iraq.



We have no time to lose. Industry lobbyists are ramping up their
smear campaigns right now to make sure the Obama plan is dead on
arrival when Congress meets in September. Americans are hearing a
constant barrage of propaganda that Canadian healthcare is a nightmare.
Let's say it ain't so below:



http://www.avaaz.org/en/reform_health_care




Canadian healthcare isn't perfect -- but it works far better than the US system.
Let's stand up to the lies, and help save Obama's movement for change with the
truth about Canada's healthcare system.



With hope,


Ricken, Brett, Benjamin, Alice, Graziela, Paula, Paul, Pascal and the whole
Avaaz team.



Here's some links for more info:



Myths about the proposed health care reforms

http://www.communitycatalyst.org/projects/national_reform/alerts?id=0066




How health care works in Canada

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health-care-abroad-canada/?scp\
=15&sq=health&st=cse




Extreme tactics of the conservative right

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/health/policy/04townhalls.html
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-08-17-voa45.cfm




Canada's health care system under attack

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/18/the_most_outrageous_us_lies_abo\
ut_global_healthcare?page=0,0
http://mediamatters.org/research/200904290032


http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/world/2009/08/10/10419141-sun.html

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc\
=







Paul Krugman on health care

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=2&scp=31&sq=health&s\
t=cse




The extent of the health care lobby


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aZdbr0YXz5jI




Health insurers stocks rise as health care plans fade


http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSTRE57G4BU20090817?sp=true

Wind Farm a Bad Fit for Digby Neck? Tom

Subject: DEADLINE FRIDAY: Eight Reasons the Digby Wind Power Project is a bad fit for Digby Neck tomhaynespaton
Offline
Send Message
Edit Membership

Tom's note: I favor wind energy. But because of the serious potential
health threats to residents, not when located in the midst of a residential
community like Digby Neck.
And also for economic/environmental reasons not on Digby Neck, because it
will seriously disrupt and damage our area's primary eco-tourism destination.
My business dropped 50% for a 4-week period while they merely resurfaced the
Digby Neck highway. Many tourists, told about the disruptions, went via the
South Shore instead. The wind farm construction is to take more than a year. And
worse, with permanent industrial wind installations, "The best kept eco-tourism
secret Digby Neck" will become industrial-park Digby Neck.

Skypower Inc. is now trying to flood Nova Scotia Environment Minister
Sterling Belliveau with a "I support the Digby Neck wind farm" form letter.

Please mail or email EA@gov.ns.ca your own concerns by this Friday's
postmarked deadline to:



Environmental Assessment
Branch

Nova Scotia
Environment

PO Box 442

Halifax, NS B3J 2P8 Or phone the Review Manager at
902-424-7630
For further background information, see the helpful summation article below.



From: fntp1@ns.sympatico.ca
To: fntp1@ns.sympatico.ca
Subject: Eight Reasons the Digby Wind Power Project is a bad fit for Digby Neck
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:42:01 -0300

Digby Neck
needs your help again if it is to remain unmolested by thoughtless
industrialization.

Perhaps you have heard that a 20 turbine wind farm,
"Digby Wind Park", is proposed for the Gulliver's Cove/Rossway area
of Digby Neck. Construction is
scheduled to begin in September with an April 2010 "in service" date for the 30
megawatt facility.

The proponent is a partnership of Scotian WindFields
Inc. of Nova
Scotia and
SkyPower Corp. of Toronto.

The
project is currently undergoing a provincial Environmental Assessment
(EA).

SkyPower's EA, prepared by Jacques Whitford Stantec
Ltd., was filed on April 30, 2009. On
June 19, the Deputy Minister of the Environment found it lacking and gave the
proponent a year to come up with additional information.

Two weeks later on July 3, SkyPower filed their
Addendum with most of the additional information in the form of a new turbine
layout.

The deadline for comments on the Addendum, which can
include comments on the original EA, is next Saturday August 8. All
documents are available for review on the Department of Environment website
www.gov.ns.ca/nse/ea


Please take
the time to send your comments on this proposed project to the NS Department of
Environment. Contact
information is at the end of this email.
-------------------------------------------------

Regardless of how you feel about the benefits of wind
power, the Digby Wind Power Project
should not be allowed to go ahead for the environmental and health reasons
summarized below:

1)
According to the Addendum, there
are 113 residences within 2 km
of a proposed turbine. Of these, 39 are within 1 km of a turbine -
several are 600 to 700 metres away from a turbine even in the latest
turbine layout.

There is peer-reviewed medical evidence that there
are likely to be health effects among some of these residents. Current
knowledge indicates that these
health effects are caused by the low frequency noise (LFN) created by the 77
metre diameter rotors (rotating blades) slicing through the air, not from the
mechanical noise of the gears in the nacelle. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a medical
doctor in private practice in upstate New York has studied cases of people
affected by large
turbines. She suggests turbines be
located a minimum of 2.4 km (1.5 miles)
from occupied buildings.

Though the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA)
cites the opinions of acousticians to dispute Dr. Pierpont’s work, we know of no
medical doctor who has reviewed her work and found her methods or
conclusions to be unscientific. See www.windturbinesyndrome.com for
more on Dr. Pierpont's work.

With the Addendum,
the proponent submitted a paper prepared by CanWEA that
"reiterates that peer-reviewed scientific literature have consistently found no
evidence linking wind turbines to human health concerns."

2)
Health Canada, in their
submission on the EA, asked the proponent to Please ensure that the
environmental
assessment contains a discussion regarding the audibility of the turbines and it
is advisable to also develop a communication strategy to accurately disclose the
potential noise related to the project to nearby residents prior to project
construction....Please provide a
discussion of the potential for low frequency noise at the nearest residential
receptors, and provide an assessment of whether or not monitoring for low
frequency noise is warranted.

In the Addendum, the proponent responded there is no evidence that the wind
turbine
technology proposed for the Project presents any potential problems related to
the generation of infrasound energy. Infrasound is
generally accepted to be frequencies ranging from 0 to 20 cycles per second
(Hz). Low frequency noise (LFN) is 20 to 200 cycles per second (Hz).
They are clearly avoiding the question.


3)
If any residents in the local
communities of Gulliver's Cove, Rossway and Waterford do end up being affected
by the 118 metre tall machines, the 35.4 kilovolt overhead connector lines
running between them, the substation, or the new 69 kilovolt transmission line
to be built to connect to the grid at Digby, the proponents offer no mitigation
other
than creating a registry for complaints.

4)
If residents wish to sell their
homes and move away, rather than live with the noise and annoyance of the
machines, or the drastic change in their landscape, the proponents offer no
guarantee that
their homes won't have lost most of their current value by being within a wind
farm. Many people will have no option but to continue living in what
may become a very undesirable and disturbing place. Many local families have
lived in the
area for generations.

5)
The proponent states that the
project will have no significant negative effect on tourism in the area.
NS Tourism, Culture and Heritage in their submission on the EA stated that the
general area does have an extensive
history and natural beauty which gives it tourism appeal and
potential. The department has several concerns about the impact of the
project on the area and its people. These concerns about the impact of the
project on tourism in the area are not addressed in the Addendum as they
were not specifically spelled out in the Deputy Minister's
decision.

6)
The new turbine layout creates a
row of ten turbines along approximately 2500 metres of the ridge of the
North Mountain, west of the village of Gulliver's Cove.

Digby Neck in this area is about 3 km wide and the
turbines would occupy the northern half of the width for a distance of 2.5 km
along the Neck. Digby Neck is a known bird migration corridor,
particularly during the fall migration (flying north to south). Nearby
Brier Island has the international designation "Important Bird
Area".

There is
no discussion in the Addendum of the impact of the latest turbine configuration
on migrating birds or bats.
The conclusions in the EA are that Although Digby Neck itself is considered to
be an important bird migration corridor, no such importance has been identified
for the Project area itself. The mitigation proposed, in the event of
bird or bat fatalities, is that "it is likely" they will count the
bodies for two years after construction.

7)
Ecology Action Centre which, like
many environmental groups, supports the development of this type of wind project
expects that municipal land use by-laws will make sure they are sited in locally
appropriate places.

In Digby Municipality, a draft by-law was developed over the past year by
the Planning Advisory Committee with input from concerned residents.
This by-law was then rejected by Council on July 20, after the proponent
strongly voiced their objections to it during the final hearing on June
29. Incredible as it may seem, three of the four councillors who voted
against the draft by-law also sit on the Planning Advisory Committee which
developed it.


Though we
participated in the municipal planning process in good faith we remain without
any protection from a local land use by-law to regulate wind development in
Digby
Municipality.

8)
Lease agreements for the lands to
be used for the wind farm were negotiated in secret. There was no public
consultation about
the project by the proponent until months later.

Two members of council were informed of the proposal
at a secret meeting in July 2007, reportedly after key lands had been secured
through lease options. The
ill-fated by-law process was begun the following spring as additional Lease
Options were being signed.

The first public meeting, in open house format, was
held by the proponent in November 2008. Between the Deputy
Minister's decision on June 19, 2009 and the upcoming deadline for comments on
the
Addendum, August 8, there will have been three additional open houses.


Repeated requests from concerned residents for a
formal, recordable public meeting to answer our questions have been rejected by
the proponent. This lack of true public consultation
during the planning stages of the project is unacceptable to
us.

--------------------------------------------

We urge
you to submit a short comment to the Department of Environment on or before the
Saturday,
August 8, 2009
deadline.


Please email your comments to EA@gov.ns.ca, phone the Review Manager at
902-424-7630, or mail them to Environmental Assessment Branch, Nova Scotia
Environment, PO
Box 442,
Halifax, NS B3J 2P8 postmarked on or before August
8.

Thank you!

A Growing
Number of Concerned Residents of Digby
Municipality

Seabeds and Turbines

From "The Examiner"


Challenge to Newsweek to correct omissions in their recent Wind Farm article
August 21, 4:10 PMWildlife Conservation ExaminerCathy TaibbiPrevious Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe Subscribe



Puffin. Photo: WikipediaFollowing is a letter penned by Jim Wiegand, Wildlife Biologist, in response to the recent Newsweek article I linked in my last story on the Queen Charlotte fight against a proposed prop-style wind farm. (Used with permission.)

I would like to preface that the fight isn’t simply to protect birds (as important as that is). The proposed construction will damage the local, economically vital crabbing industry and require the dredging and permanent destruction of crucial seabed – impacting ALL marine life in the area. See the letter below:

Delkatla Sanctuary Society

Box 246, Masset BC VOT IMO

THE NAIKUN OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY PROJECT will cause irreparable environmental damage to Hecate Strait

Naikun says “no significant adverse effects are expected” from a wind farm in Hecate Strait

NOT TRUE - In the first of five phases Naikun plans to:

Scour 100 square kilometres of the Dogfish Banks sea bed
Remove up to 320,000 cubic metres (approximately 32,000 dump truck loads) of the sea bottom to a maximum depth of 8 metres (24 feet). (Naikun’s Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate, Volume 2 – Project Design. Page 2-17).
This is one of the major halibut, crab and clam ‘nurseries’ in Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance. Removing this natural seabed will be devastating.
THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST PHASE –

§ The total wind farm area is actually 560square kilometres, most of which will be dredged.

§ Total estimated dredgeate of the seabed will be 1.15 million cubic metres (160,000 dump truck loads) to a maximum depth of 8 metres (24 feet).

§ Practically all the natural seabed of the Dogfish Banks will be stripped.

In addition, there are increasing concerns about the risks of the rotating blades on humans, including effects on the inner ear and emotional problems in children

1. sleep disturbance
2. headache
3. tinnitus (pronounced “tin-uh-tus"; ringing or buzzing in the ears)
4. ear pressure
5. dizziness (a general term that includes vertigo, lightheadedness, sensation of almost fainting, etc.)
6. vertigo (clinically, vertigo refers to the sensation of spinning, or the room moving)
7. nausea
8. visual blurring
9. tachycardia (rapid heart rate)
10. irritability
11. problems with concentration and memory
12. panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep

There are even concerns about the rapid heartbeat that accompanies exposure to the machines.

With all this in mind, I reprint the letter from Mr. Wiegand to Newsweek.

Editor, I read over your Newsweek story “Birds vs. Environmentalists? concerning the conflict between prop wind turbines and wildlife. I understand this problem better than most so I thought I would comment on the content of the story and provide additional background.

The Newsweek article is useless in solving the Prop turbine bird/bat mortality problem and dealing with the proliferation of the prop turbines across America. First of all NOTHING is said about new turbine designs. There are new vertical shaft turbine and other designs that produce far more wind energy than prop turbines. This is very important because this would also solve the bird mortality problem and produce more energy. Birds and bats fly around these designs and do not try to fly through blades spinning at 200 mph. It is absurd that this was left out of the article.

The use of the word “Mitigate” by the wind industry is a joke. The industry uses this term regularly and they claim to have a right to mitigate any environmental problem. This term is also used in all their Environmental Impact Reports. Anytime you see this word put out by the industry think of it as posturing, a legal dance, or a comforting hand holding session by the industry that goes nowhere.

Part of the mitigation process involves studies. Studies are important in the mitigation process for two reasons, first it is a good reason to stall for years and second studies can be slanted or rigged. This is how the industry dealt with the slaughtered birds of prey issue at Altamont pass. Look at the two golden eagle studies and the vertical shaft turbine comparison study for Altamont pass. These are published as being credible and scientific but they were rigged for the benefit of the wind industry. Anyone that tried to stop the killing at Altamont Pass was engaged in this entirely corrupt process. At this point any new studies are virtually meaningless. The problems are already known… birds and bats are not compatible with prop turbines and never will be. Blades tips that spin at over 300 ft or the length of a football field per second are much faster than any bird.

Committees and proposed legislation as mentioned in the article are also useless. It is just part of the posturing process. Look at this statement in the article.

“Mostly conducting research such as determining the extent to which an area being considered for wind development can harm wildlife. If the potential is great, the AWWI will recommend the project be abandoned; if there are less dangerous consequences, the committee may suggest certain measures to minimize any potential impact. Curtailment—or shutting down the turbines at times when bats or migratory birds appear and are more vulnerable to collision—is one such measure.”

The “AWWI will recommend” and “the committee may suggest certain measures”. These are carefully chosen words written by lawyers that mean absolutely nothing. It is again just industry posturing from our corrupt green friends.

The final statement in the article….."We understand that certainly there are impacts, but they need to be viewed in the larger context, "It's not wind energy versus nothing; it's wind energy versus some other form of energy which will also invariably have an impact—potentially more of an impact than a wind project.”

This is again, meaningless garbage used to rationalize the mortality issue. As we know and it does not state anywhere in the article is that a prop turbine wind farm targets and chops up protected species every time they put one of these projects into their critical habitats. Over 90% of the species killed by prop turbines are protected by laws.

Finally the article gives the wind industry the last word. This is very important because the last statement is used illustrate the slant of the article and persuade the readers. The article puts some of the problems out there but in the end it is made it look like the industry is aware of and handling the problems. In actuality the wind industry is just selling lethal and archaic technology, to a misinformed public. There is a much bigger and more important story here if you decide to run with it.

Jim Wiegand

OK, Newsweek, what do you say?
Clicky Web Analytics