A brave daughter journeys into mental illness. Image by Nora Kelly

Susan Inman’s memoir is a must read for any family faced with schizophrenia, and for our health system, too.

After Her Brain Broke: Helping My Daughter Recover Her Sanity
Susan Inman
Bridgeross Communications/Ingram Books (2010)

I suffer from depression and have been treated for it for more than 20 years. My problem is anxiety — not anxiousness, but overwhelming unchangeable anxiety, mind-numbing anxiety that has its physical side which I’ll tell you about in a moment. Book review by Rafe Mair at The Tyee: ‘After Her Brain Broke’

Alexandra Morton

Here’s an Article by Rafe at The Common Sense Canadian which tells us that even the former Attorney General of Norway and the owner of the world’s largest salmon farming company agree that salmon farms must be moved out of migration routes.

Stop me before I lash out in self-defense.

Each new wave of digital device takes an extreme disliking to me.

It seems to be axiomatic that the older people get, the harder it is for them to make changes. The old ways were better. This newfangled stuff will ruin civilization, or at least the part which isn’t already ruined. I try to avoid this — not in an attempt to end the aging process, but in order to keep my brain active so I can continue to work.

Some of the inventions of the last 25 years or so I enjoy, including the personal computer — although there I have my grievances. You see, I’m one of those people that only has to touch an electronic gadget to have it stop its inner workings immediately. When I touch a button on, say, the entertainment centre on a plane, it packs in — often taking other passengers nearby with it. I have a lifetime aversion to electric instruments. In fact, they frighten me because I’m sure they will either electrocute or nuke me. The machine in question feels my trepidation and retaliates accordingly.

Era before ‘automatic save’

My early encounters with a PC were nightmarish. I would finish an editorial and before I could save it (there was no automatic save in 1981) the computer would “lock,” and after frantic calls to experts, I would have to crash it and lose everything. Or I would have slippery fingers, accidentally telling it to print 100 copies instead of 10 — and then I would fail to stop the damned printer. David Chalk and Mike Agerbo (two people who I got started in radio, incidentally) would be like the doctors on call, and I would insist they did house calls.

Eventually as PCs and I matured, we became tentative friends.

When the fax came along, despite the fact that I felt the need for a lead jockstrap to prevent that area from being nuked, I adjusted.

Internet, loved and hated

Then came the Internet. I liked it and the e-mails it spawned. It was great stuff. I could submit manuscripts in a minute or less, while a fax would take an indefinite amount of time depending on whether the fax machine burst into flames, or got jammed, or both. I was delighted — I was acclimatized to the new, and work was easier.

The Internet was, however, a bit of a mixed blessing in that it hugely expanded your ability to research but the downside was that editors would no longer accept “back in the forties” and insisted on the correct date. Research was easier, but the research demand increased. All in all, though, it was a “good thing.”

Before going on, let me say that the iPod is indeed a magnificent development because it lets you listen to the music you want to without tiresome interruptions.

In 1985, while doing the midnight show on CKNW, I interviewed a BC Tel guy about something called a cell phone. I couldn’t see how this would work. While it might be fun calling people from the loo as you were reading that day’s racing form, what about having to put up with calls you didn’t want? What was going to happen to your privacy? Early on, I was fishing with a buddy and his pocket started to ring! “What the hell is that, Derrick? Do you mean that even with a wilderness lake, a hatch of mayflies and just the right fly on your line — a scenario that anyone with a soul want to savour — you’d let the moment be shattered by someone who wants to sell you a car, fill your Viagra requirements or seek your latest political opinions?!” How can anything be urgent enough to interfere with long-awaited idyllic moments?

The cell phone became an infestation and an epidemic of community nuisance. The jingle had replaced the ring so that quiet little bits of earlobe nibbling over a bottle of Merlot were shattered by “Mary Had A Little Lamb” from the booth next door. Soon there was a cacophony of conflicting jingles answered by people who obviously assumed that the person on the other end was hard-of-hearing.

Or, you would go to the theatre and no matter how earnest the pleas from the master of ceremonies that the audience turn off their cell phones off, the high point of the performance was invariably punctuated by a kazoo screeching “Row, Row, Row Your Boat.” I’ve found the perfect solution. I have a cell phone, but no one knows the number — not even me — so I can make a nuisance of myself without fear of retaliation.

A universe of screens

Then came the Blackberry — surely one invention too far. “But,” you are told, “you can get your e-mails from anywhere in the world and respond to them immediately!”

That’s a good thing? The world has become a seething mass of screens covered in shorthand that’s tapped out with thumbs. Can it be that far off where every fourth note of a piece of music will be sent with the recipient required to fill in the blanks?

Are we sure that the when world economy crashed at the same time the Blackberry arrived it was a coincidence?

What happened to peace, quiet and solitude? Are we all making more money because we can talk incessantly with one another 24 hours a day? Are we happier? Social issues have arisen, such as: Is it considered bad form to turn one’s Blackberry off during sexual frolics? Are we permitted any free time? Will we reach the point where thousands stand on window cells of tall buildings, and after texting the police and the local TV station, shout “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more” before ending it all?

Just because one is old and grumpy doesn’t mean that he’s wrong to observe that every minute we’re getting more and more in each other’s face and turning one another into frenetic fools bound together by bubbling babble that can’t be turned off — only intensified.

I don’t want to return to the “good old days” — I just want a little peace and quiet.

Next time, march to give elected reps real power.

Why demand MPs go back to work if they can’t do real work once there?

Now that the prorogue issue is behind us, it may be a good time to examine how Parliament works — and, more importantly, how it doesn’t work. What I have to say may sound cynical, but I say it’s simply an unpleasant truth.

During the rallies on the prorogue issue, it became apparent that while the protesters had every reason to be angry at a very arrogant prime minister, it was for the wrong reason.

The demand was that MPs go back to work. But that supposes that when MPs are in the House they are working — and that when they’re not, they’re lollygagging on a warm beach somewhere.

Well, when they’re in the House they are busy but they sure as hell aren’t working — at least not for the people.

Your civics teacher was wrong

The ultimate power is the House of Commons. This is what we are wrongly taught in school.

Remember how we were told that “responsible government” meant that the government — the prime minister and cabinet — were “responsible” to the House of Commons who could toss them out any time they wished?

If that were true, then surely there would be an example of this happening.

In fact, you have to go back to the “Pacific scandal” of 1873 to see a majority government pulled down by MPs. This was caused by an enormous scandal where Macdonald and his colleagues were alleged to have “sold” railway rights for contributions from the railway men to the Conservative party. This is, in my research, the only time such a thing has occurred — and it was at a time when party discipline was not nearly as complete as it is now.

Behind the façade of democracy

We must conclude, then, that in the real world the House of Commons has the right to being down a government on paper, but not in fact.

Why is this so?

It’s because the MP owes his position and his political future to the party. If MPs are backbenchers, they want to be in cabinet — or at least parliamentary secretaries — and that only comes to good little boys and girls. Needless to say, those who serve in cabinet or as parliamentary secretaries want to stay there or be promoted.

MPs that want goodies for their constituency know that the Sam Rayburn, former leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, was right when he said “to get along, you must go along.”

The House of Commons has, within its rules, the power to set up parliamentary committees to examine what the prime minister and cabinet are doing. These committees are actually set up, but here’s the rub — the majority of them are on the government side, and therefore are appointed by the prime minister as the chair, with the exception of the Finance Committee. In a committee, the “whip” is all about “doing what you’re told, or else.” It will come as no surprise to you to learn that committees tend to be “make this work” projects.

The plain and simple fact is that MPs do as they’re told.

Mighty minorities

What about “minority” governments?

It’s true that they can be brought down by a majority of MPs. However, they are often “saved” — not because their good works entitle them to it, but because it’s not in the interests of the other parties to have an election. This is because, loosely translated, they just don’t have the money.

A word about minority governments. Supporters of our antiquated and unfair electoral system never tire of telling us that “nothing is done” and that majority governments are a vital necessity. Thinking that mantra through, it’s obviously saying that instead of the government having to persuade MPs to support a policy, it’s just better if the prime minster has the power to cram it through.

How to get serious and fix democracy

There are two obvious solutions to this dilemma — one of which is hard, and the other easy.

The hard solution is proportional representation, which gives minority parties the ability to elect MPs — virtually assuring a minority government where parties must convince a majority of MPs of the wisdom of their policies.

The easy one is to give MPs the great protection that electors have — a secret ballot. Now, that would put the cat amongst the pigeons. The rule would remain that the government would only be obliged to resign on a budget matter or one accepted as a “confidence” motion. And what’s the argument against this again?

It has been pointed out that under this option, we won’t know how our MPs voted. But we only know that under our present system because the MP must always vote as he is told.

If we, as a society, consider that regular people ought to be able to cast their votes free from outside pressure, promises of rewards, and penalties, why would we deny that same protection to those we elect to speak for us?

Free the MPs!

It’s been said that no government could do business if it could easily be outvoted.

Stuff and nonsense. The rule would be that only a lost vote on a budget matter or vote of confidence would compel a government to resign. But think on the plus side.

Governments would actually have to make their case — not simply go through the motions until the rubber stamp vote is taken. Imagine, you and I would have the full picture — not the picture filtered through government spin doctors. MPs would have power and personal dignity, and why shouldn’t they? Why should an intelligent person be forced to do precisely as they are told, speak only in government bafflegab, and pretend to their constituents that they actually did something other than playing a rubber stamping role in Parliament?

Our choice is between a five year dictatorship of a prime minister and his unelected men in gray, or a five year dictatorship of a parliament free to govern as it deems best and submitting every five years to a careful examination of its actions by the voting public.

My suggestion would work like a powerful cleanser — but it will never happen in a country whose voters still believe, contrary to all the evidence, that their MPs have meaningful power.

Today a potpourri.

First, to correct a misimpression making the email circuit, I have never pronounced support for nuclear power. Here’s what I said in The Tyee:

“I do not, repeat not, say we should adopt a nuclear power program in B.C., only that we stand back and look at nuclear with a jaundiced eye but still look. We are, under the Campbell Liberals, bound and determined to destroy our rivers. Campbell, nose growing all the time, says we need the power and that’s why our rivers must be sacrificed. His nose stretches because we do not need the power and even if we did, private river projects won’t help because they only produce power when BC Hydro doesn’t need it. But if there’s a valid alternative, shouldn’t we look at it?

“There are, as I see it, these concerns to be dealt with, any one of which would negate the arguments for nuclear energy.

“1. Is it, under 2009 conditions and knowledge, safe? Even if it’s safe under everyday circumstances, could terrorists use it to create an atom bomb-like disaster?

“2. How do we dispose of the waste? It’s been this problem that has for many people made the issue a non starter.

“3. Is it cost effective? We know that they haven’t been but are the numbers better now?

“4. Is it really green, considering what it takes to build and maintain a facility?

“We would be damned fools to rush into a pro-nuclear policy but also damned fools not to consider it.”

Fonyo’s unfair fall

It’s tragic that Steve Fonyo, who completed Terry Fox’s run, has been stripped of his Order of Canada.

I followed his run very carefully, broadcasting live interviews with Steve as he progressed. It was a very gutsy performance but from the outset you knew that many people — including the media — didn’t want him to make it and, to their way of thinking, “show up” Terry. To say he didn’t get the sort of media and public adoration Terry got is a masterpiece of understatement.

Steve was a troubled young man who had a hard time understanding why there was this resentment in the air. I interviewed him many times after his run and it was obvious that this was affecting Steve and he responded badly. The booze got to him and he started getting into trouble. He has scarcely been out of trouble since but his offences have been largely due to alcohol and none of which you would classify as serious.

He was not cut from the same cloth as was Terry Fox. He appears to be as unstable as Terry is stable.

Steve was very proud of his Order on Canada. I wonder why a true hero is stripped of his honour because of relatively minor sins he has committed while a disgraced former Prime Minister and a crooked newspaper magnate keep theirs.

Anyone who doubts that Orders of Canada are political as hell should ponder this question.

The proponent, Bute Hydro Inc., recently indicated that additional field work and analysis would be conducted in the spring and fall of 2010 before it will be in a position to submit its environmental impact statement. In light of this new information, the timelines for the review panel process will be substantially delayed.

The participant funding process will be re-initiated when the proponent is in a position to confirm a timeline for the submission of its environmental impact statement. At that time, an announcement will be made with the revised funding amounts and the deadline to submit applications. Current applicants will have an opportunity to revise and resubmit their applications for consideration at that time.

The Agency announced in May 2009 the availability of $250,000 under its Participant Funding Program to assist groups and individuals to participate in the environmental review for the Bute Inlet Hydroelectric Project.

Information on the Participant Funding Program, the proposed project and on the environmental assessment process is available on the Agency’s Web site at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca, registry number 09-05-44825.

Bute Hydro Inc. is proposing to construct 17 run-of-river hydroelectric facilities in the vicinity of Bute Inlet. Major components in addition to the generating facilities include a substation near the mouth of Southgate River, associated access roads and ancillary works, 216 km of 230 kV collector transmission line and 227 km of 500 kV trunk transmission line from the proposed substation near the mouth of Southgate River to the existing 500 kV substation at Malaspina.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency administers the federal environmental assessment process, which identifies the environmental effects of proposed projects and measures to address those effects, in support of sustainable development.

For further information: media may contact: Annie Roy, Manager, Communications, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Tel.: (613) 957-0396

KAREN HOWLETT
Globe and Mail
Jan. 08, 2010

Ontario has a power problem.

A strategy to subsidize the province’s nascent green energy industry is
starting to sting businesses and many households that find themselves
paying the biggest markups on electricity pricing in the country.

Even as electricity demand – and market prices – dropped last year with
the global economic downturn, electricity bills have risen steadily on the
back of generous contracts signed by the province’s power planning agency.
Now, the government of Premier Dalton McGuinty is preparing for a looming
political backlash.

What’s at stake is an industrial strategy that’s on a collision course
with a century-old policy of delivering electricity to consumers at the
lowest possible cost. After the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in
the manufacturing heartland, Mr. McGuinty vowed to create more than 50,000
new ones through the Green Energy Act. But he is building this new sector
- and burnishing his green credentials – by ratcheting up electricity
costs.

The average market price for electricity in Ontario is at its lowest level
since the market was opened up in 2002. It was 3.3 cents a kilowatt hour
yesterday, compared with a record high average of 9.97 cents in September,
2005. But customers are not reaping the benefits of lower prices because
the government is recovering the cost of new projects from power users.

The government is luring green-energy investors with the promise of
generous long-term contracts that include a guaranteed revenue stream.
Every time a new deal is inked with a gas-fired plant, a wind farm or
solar-panel manufacturer, the costs go up for customers. During several
months last year, rates for large industrial users jumped nearly 20 per
cent. The question emerging is whether this is politically sustainable.

The government is sitting on a “political time bomb,” said Toronto energy
lawyer Peter Murphy. “While renewable energy is a great thing for the
environment, it’s also expensive.”

Mr. McGuinty’s government began eyeing the development of new, clean
energy sources in 2006, when the province was facing a shortage of
electricity. He intrinsically linked the province’s economic fortunes to
combatting climate change, saying it is not a matter of choosing between
prosperity and the environment.

Former energy minister George Smitherman was the driving force behind the
strategy, pushing renewable energy projects with little regard for cost,
according to industry sources. He resigned to run for mayor of Toronto,
leaving his successor, Gerry Phillips, to deal with the fallout from that
strategy.

Mr. Phillips is acutely aware that electricity prices are a growing issue.

“We are not as clear as we need to be about the price of the production of
electricity,” he said in an interview.

Ontario does not have the highest electricity costs on the continent, but
it stands out for the gap between the market price of power and the price
charged to consumers. Toronto ranked in the middle of the pack among North
American cities, according to a study of consumer prices done by
Hydro-Québec last April. But industry observers say prices will increase
substantially in Ontario over the next two years as the cost of higher
priced renewable energy flows through to consumers.

The Ontario Power Authority, the government’s planning arm, says it
managed 47 large-scale electricity supply contracts worth a total of
$14.1-billion last year. Contract holders receive a fixed price over 20
years for the electricity they produce – 13.5 cents a kilowatt hour for
on-shore wind farms and up to 80.2 cents for solar power. While wind and
solar make up only a small portion of electricity supply today, the rates
are well above the average of 4.5 cents that government-owned Ontario
Power Generation receives for most of its electricity output.

“Somebody has to pay the price of subsidizing an energy policy that this
government seems bent on pursuing for largely political reasons as opposed
to energy supply,” said Ontario Progressive Conservative energy critic
John Yakabuski.

Electricity consumers pay for these contracts through what is called a
global adjustment – which covers the difference between the market price
for electricity and the rates paid to companies under the guaranteed
revenue contracts. As the market price falls, the global adjustment rises.
The global adjustment averaged 2.91 cents a kilowatt hour in 2009, on top
of 3.16 cents for the electricity itself.

Adam White, president of the Association of Major Power Consumers in
Ontario, said the situation is not sustainable because it will leave
companies paying higher rates than competitors in other jurisdictions.

For most residential consumers, the cost of the global adjustment is
hidden because it is rolled into the electricity rate set by the
province’s energy regulator, one that has risen only modestly in recent
years.

But homeowners who signed contracts with electricity retailers are getting
hit hard. Retailers are now passing on the global adjustment, which is not
included in the contracted fixed rate for electricity. A typical customer
who used 1,000 kilowatts of power in December would have paid an extra
$38.

Gerry Heaslip's 'fish of a lifetime' from the River Dodder in Dublin.

A bit of a heads up … shortly, Damien Gillis – the superb producer of outdoor videos – and I will soon be announcing an undertaking which we’re very excited about. Stay tuned!

Premier Campbell and his henchmen along with the federal minister, Gail Shea, continue to deny the heavy impact of sea lice from fish farms on migrating wild salmon. When you read the following report from Norway remember that our migrating salmon smolts are smaller than the Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout in Europe thus even more vulnerable.

I must tell you that I returned from a short holiday in London thoroughly re-energized so despoilers of the environment will be hearing from me and colleagues this year BIG TIME. My every sense tells me that the public is getting angrier by the day at what they see happening to our beautiful province which means that to keep the pressure on, please send this and other information to your address book!

Here’s an article that appeared in the Irish Times on December 28, 2009:

Norway alert on lice

BY DEREK EVANS

NORWAY’S Directorate for Nature Management and the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (Nina) have issued a warning that salmon farming in Norway must be reduced during 2010.

The warning is directed to the new Minister for Fisheries, Lisbeth Berg-Hansen, a former head of the Norwegian salmon farming association and the owner of a salmon farm.

According to Norwegian press reports, Nina estimates that the current level of fish farming in Norway is six to seven times the sustainable limit. There are now 350 million farmed salmon in pens along the Norwegian coast, implying a sea lice burden of 300 to 350 million.

Sea lice are a major threat to migrating juvenile salmon – and therefore to the survival of wild stocks generally.

The Norwegian Salmon Association has said the situation is “a disaster”. It has also drawn attention to the increased resistance of sea lice to the main chemical treatment being used. They have called for a halt to further growth for the industry.

While the levels of farmed salmon production in Ireland are nowhere near those of Norway, farms do tend to be concentrated in particular areas, according to Salmon Watch Ireland.

The damage inflicted on migrating juvenile salmon by sea-lice concentrations generated by farms has also been researched by Irish scientists, and with conclusions similar to those carried out in Norway and Scotland.

Salmon Watch Ireland has lodged a complaint with the EU Commission about the problem, arguing that the Government is failing to apply the terms of the EU Habitats Directive to the management of salmon farms.

The Minister for Natural Resources, Conor Lenihan, and the Minister for Finance, his brother Brian, have co-signed an order cutting rod angling licence fees for 2010 by 10 per cent.

Proceeds from the new licence fees will be invested in management initiatives designed to rehabilitate wild salmon stocks and habitats. The licence includes a salmon conservation levy equivalent to 50 per cent of the licence fee.

“The reduction should enhance fishing as a recreational activity and supports the fisheries boards’ efforts toward building angling tourism numbers,” said Conor Lenihan. Licence fees for 2010 are: All regions (A): €120; one region (B): €58; 21-day (R): €46; 1-day (S): €32; juvenile (P): €18.

Salmon angling gets under way this Friday on a limited number of rivers and loughs. The Drowes River in Co Leitrim will take precedence.

Rarely does a season pass without a fish being taken on opening day.

The Owencarrow and Lackagh rivers also open on New Year’s Day in the northern region and trolling will be the preferred method on Lough Gill in Co Sligo.

In Dublin, the River Liffey is a different kettle of fish. Traditionally a first-day starter, however, for the past three years, salmon angling was suspended because of low sustainable levels.

Original article: Norway alert on lice

A bloody stupid decision

Given what’s now known about concussions, there’s no excuse for approving extreme fighting.

There are some things I will just never understand. For a few hundred thousand dollars, OK maybe a million or two, we’ll leave the ill, especially the mentally ill without adequate health service but we can afford the billions on the Olympics. It says something about how much our society cares about its citizens. Not only do we not care about the less fortunate, we won’t even take minimal steps to stop bad things happening.

A couple of weeks ago, I spoke of my watching Floyd Patterson, in 1960, knock out Ingemar Johansson in a heavyweight boxing match and how I was horrorstruck seeing Johansson out like a light for five minutes, blood streaming from his mouth and one of his feet twitching and how I instantly lost my enthusiasm for a “sport” I had always followed. What I finally grasped was that boxing had, as its primary object, concussing the opponent — in short, causing brain damage.

In the past few days, we’ve learned of a tragedy and complete insensitivity. I refer to the death of former NHLer Reggie Fleming, the comments by Don Cherry and the decision of Vancouver City Council to countenance extreme fighting or, as it’s now euphemistically called “mixed martial arts.”

Dr. Charles Tator, a neurosurgeon from the University of Toronto has studied the effect of concussions and has concluded, “Concussions used to be considered minor head injuries because we were taught in medical school that a concussion had only a temporary effect. It’s true that some of the symptoms are temporary, but the effects on the brain are often permanent,” he said.

“We can’t really speak any longer of a minor concussion. There is no concussion that is truly minor.”

After the autopsy, Tator correctly pointed out that the style or brand of hockey promoted by Don Cherry leads to head injuries.

Cherry didn’t deal with the issue, namely whether or not the hard-hitting, illegal-checking, fight-ridden game Cherry loves contributes to concussions but responded, “For this guy to come out and blame me for all the injuries I think is totally unfair,” and concluded that Dr. Tator was trying to get his name in the papers. This is, unfortunately, the sort of crap you’d expect of this mental midget who makes huge bucks promoting violence and bad mouthing European players.

Don’t blame hockey

It’s pointless to blame Cherry for taking all that money from the taxpayer funded CBC for what happened to Fleming and, amongst others, Eric Lindros, Keith Primeau, Pat LaFontaine, Adam Deadmarsh, and Nick Kypreos. (The total carnage cannot be determined but if you were to examine all who had played hockey, it must be immense).

Many years ago a New York sportswriter of great repute, Dan Parker, observed that “hockey is the greatest game in the world; it has to be to survive the people who run it.”

He might have added, “and the people who report on it.”

But maybe I’m wrong to even bother with Cherry, the CBC, or Gary Bettman and those who run and profit from the game. For haven’t most of us just loved hockey fights — unless our guy loses of course?

Isn’t the answer always that violence is part of the game?

Mike Millbury, a sportscaster with the CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada, is a former defenseman, assistant general manager for the Boston Bruins, as well as GM and coach for the New York Islanders had this to say about Fleming, “Hey, unfortunately, he had some problems … It comes with the territory. You wanna be a hockey player, there’s danger involved. There’s going to be long-term problems.”

Such as “cognitive decline, behavioral abnormalities and dementia.” Or if it’s Kevin Kaminski, going from being a loving husband and father to coming within an ace of punching out his little daughter. What came with “his territory” was long-lasting: insomnia, irritability, vertigo, sensitivity to light. He couldn’t exercise because of headaches as soon as he got his heart rate up. His memory shot, he couldn’t find his car after shopping for groceries. He’d forget his PIN number at the bank machine — it was his jersey number. As Kaminsky put it, “All those dings you’d get fighting in the old days, you’d have a couple of Aspirins and away you went,” he said. “They didn’t consider those concussions back then. It was basically suck it up and go play. Those dings add up to problems and that’s basically what happened to me.”

During his four seasons with the Capitals, Kevin Kaminsky’s hard-nosed, aggressive play made him a big favourite of fans who dubbed him “Killer Kaminski” because he didn’t hesitate in provoking fights with much bigger opponents. You might be interested in Kaminsky”s career stats in the NHL — 139 games as a centre-ice man, he scored 3 goals, had 10 assists and had 528 minutes in penalties!

Voting for blood

Now Vancouver City Council has voted 6-3 in favour of sanctioning “Ultimate Fighting,” which can be defined as: two competitors using techniques from boxing, kickboxing, wrestling and other fighting styles to knock each other out. It used to be called “extreme fighting” but now those who run this barbarous excuse for a sport prefer to call it “mixed martial arts” — sounds so much more refined, you know.

There was one voice of sanity, Coun. Andrea Reimer, who voted against the motion saying “It’s become very hard for me to see the logic in passing this motion … I’ve spent a lot of time . . . dealing with the fallout of kids who have been desensitized to violence because of adult sanctioning of violence, but then adults also saying it’s not appropriate for children to participate in the same level of violence that we have sanctioned ourselves.”

Coun. Geoff Meggs, who voted in favour of the motion, in an amazing analogy compared this sport of “who gets to scramble whose brains first” to hockey, saying that even it promotes fighting. “It’s turning into a problem for the National Hockey League.” The answer of this council wit — no I exaggerate by half — is to give city blessing to scrambling of brains even more.

It’s Pogo saying “we’ve met the enemy and he is us! It’s pointless to single out Meggs, or Cherry, for people love this stuff, filling stadiums to watch blood and gore. Have you ever seen hockey fans boo a fight and ask the officials to stop it before someone gets hurt?

The fact is a very simple one. We know that boxing, hockey, football and ultimate fighting cause concussions that cause brain damage. We see glaring and tragic examples like Muhammad Ali. We know about the NHL stars like Lindros who had sense to quit and those like Fleming and Kaminski who couldn’t afford to quit since fighting was their only ticket to the big leagues.

Yet we fill the stadiums and call for more.

Homo sapiens is the most bloodthirsty species on this planet, the only one that encourages pain and suffering for entertainment.

Nuclear power plant in the U.K.

Well,  at least inviting a hard look at nuclear energy as an option.

Batten down the hatches! Hide the good booze! Prepare for the worst! Rafe is going to talk about nuclear, hereinafter called N to preserve the sensibilities of readers!

First a bit of background as to why I would discuss this matter now having done almost nothing on the subject since the early ’80s.

We are facing several crises in Canada just as elsewhere. Fossil fuels are about as welcome as a cow at a christening. The thought of burning a litre of gas or oil, or a sack of coal, brings exclamations of horror, yet 30 years ago coal was the darling of fuels. Remember northeast coal project and the government of which I was a part making that big deal with South Korea? And how those mining and selling it out of the southeast sector gave the government hell for creating a favoured competitor? Which it did. Coal was all the rage as scientists worked on ways to cheaply convert it into gasoline while other scientists worked on making coal clean enough to burn for power.

Those theories would be considered madness now. Or would they, considering that in their stead we have the Alberta tar sands, which make coal and oil smell like lavender perfume by comparison?

When I was a teenager after the war (no, dammit, not that war, World War II!), atomic energy was seen by everyone as the answer to our power problems. I remember a teacher telling us that there was enough energy in a streetcar (yes, we had those then in addition to the coach and four and the surrey with the fringe on top) to power an entire city. Many countries went into N as did the province of Ontario but many others did not — by an amazing coincidence those that didn’t, had no need to.

The blackening of a reputation

Why did N become so pilloried, especially by the left?

Many reasons, not the least of which was the sense of horror when we sat back and evaluated the use of atomic bomb in Japan. We had revisited Hiroshima and Nagasaki and related that to atomic energy. We started to see and read what radiation had done to the survivors and were easily led to the conclusion that if an N power plant blew up, it would be like an atom bomb. I was easily frightened because, you see, I’m one of those who stands back from the photocopy machine because I’m sure it’s going to nuke me!

I’ve not come easily to asking this question. In fact there have been two triggering mechanisms, first Kim Il Campbell selling out our rivers to private interests and second the huge constitutional question that’s emerging. Let’s deal with the latter.

Nuclear and the separatists

The tar sands are the world’s biggest polluter and are seen by the government of Alberta to be its economic salvation taking them back to the balmier days of Peter Lougheed. “Resources” come under provincial jurisdiction, though the taxing authority and export power rests with Ottawa. British Columbia, evidently slobbering to have the pipeline from the tar sands traverse the province and the product shipped from our coast, would, under the present government, stand with Alberta.

Flash your mind back to the late ’70s when the Trudeau government passed the National Energy Plan to take control of power through their power to tax and power over exports. The crisis was a real one. Alberta bumper stickers said “let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark.” No one really took them seriously except Brian Mulroney who got rid of the policy shortly after taking office.

The question we must all consider is what the impact of Alberta in revolt and an aroused separatism in Quebec would be. We must remember that in 1979, though a Quebec separation referendum was to come shortly, there was no Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal party was truly national.

It’s not my purpose to deal with the legitimacy of the NEP nor to get into constitutional nitpicking — we’ll have time for that later — but to say emphatically that Ottawa playing with Alberta’s oil could be dangerous to more than just relations between Ottawa and Edmonton and that the unity of this country will be in issue.

Now, enough politics — let’s look at the merits.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl

In 1979, the Three Mile Island disaster occurred. It involved failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a stuck-open pilot-operated relief valve in the primary system, which allowed large amounts of reactor coolant to escape. The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators, due to inadequate training and ambiguous control room indicators, to recognize the cause of the problem. It’s well to remember, as the bumper sticker of the day proclaimed, “More people were killed in the front seat of Ted Kennedy’s car than died at Three Mile Island.”

But, said opponents, look what might have been! A thought I shared, incidentally.

The Chernobyl disaster in Russia in 1986 made the “antis’” case almost irrefutable. Here an atomic power blew up and sent a nuclear haze across much of Europe. That it was an old plant subject to the economic and safety ineptitude of the Soviet Union was passed over as we all reacted with horror.

It’s wise to look at what damage was done. A 2005 study prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), concluded there were 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.” Those aren’t trifling figures and as Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated, health consequences may not show up for decades. But it isn’t Hiroshima either.

The combined effect of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island was to stultify any consideration of N power thereafter.

Not so everywhere and it’s worth noting that in Europe there are now 186 nuclear power plants in production, including 19 in the U.K., and 17 being built.

Questions that need asking

I do not, repeat not, say we should adopt an N power program in B.C., only that we stand back and look at N with a jaundiced eye but still look. We are, under the Campbell Liberals, bound and determined to destroy our rivers. Campbell, nose growing all the time, says we need the power and that’s why our rivers must be sacrificed. His nose stretches because we do not need the power and even if we did, private river projects won’t help because they only produce power when BC Hydro doesn’t need it. But if there’s a valid alternative, shouldn’t we look at it?

There are, as I see it, these concerns to be dealt with, any one of which would negate the arguments for N energy.

1. Is it, under 2009 conditions and knowledge, safe? Even if it’s safe under everyday circumstances, could terrorists use it to create an atom bomb like disaster?

2. How do we dispose of the waste? It’s been this problem that has for many people made the issue a non starter.

3. Is it cost effective? We know that they haven’t been but are the numbers better now?

4. Is it really green, considering what it takes to build and maintain a facility.

We would be damned fools to rush into a pro-nuclear policy but also damned fools not to consider it.

Vindicated!

Addendum: A special environment committee including Dr. David Suzuki has urged the Campbell autocracy to re-examine their private power decision.

Says the estimable Dr. Craig Orr from Watershed Watch, B.C. conservation groups are in broad agreement that the government’s strategy is “seriously flawed and needs a major overhaul”.

The Tyee can take a well deserved bow for being the only media outlet that has consistently encouraged debate on this subject.