9 Feb 2008

Who will speak for us?

Where to begin? Although I've been away for some time, I've kept up with all the goings on over the incinerator. And in my travels I've had the opportunity to learn much more than I ever wanted to know about incineration, and the pro-incinerator lobby. They are powerful and vocal and are everywhere. They are masterful at showing the best side of incineration and hiding the deep, dark deadly secrets.

They will show you the clean, Darlington-looking control rooms and allow you to speak with those who depend on the industry for their livelihoods. They will point out a school or daycare or apartment building or clothesline just within spitting distance of the incinerator and tell you everyone is content and happy with it. And it makes you want to spit.

If you travel a little farther afield and speak to people not on the industry's "okay list", you'll find a lot of worry, a lot of dissatisfaction, and a lot of anger surrounding the incineration industry. Especially from those who were led to believe that it was safe with few emissions because of all the scrubber technology and monitoring. They found out differently AFTER the fact. They found out that livestock on farms were affected and now it's not safe to drink the milk or eat the meat that has 'bio-accumulated' toxins in them. It has now begun to hurt the farming industry and as that knowledge spreads, it will devastate it.

They found out that they are having higher rates of birth defects in infants in areas within a 20 - 90 km radius of these stacks. They are having more chronic lung disease problems such as asthma (sound familiar?) and certain types of cancers.

But in most cases, their governments are silent. They don't want to be sued and they want to keep up their denials. There are some in government who are trying to speak out and are muzzled. There are many in the general population who are not muzzled and are being heard world-wide, if you care to listen.

Our elected (and unelected) officials have chosen not to listen. They are content to listen only to the paid EFW lobbyists the Region hired to promote incineration. Yes, that's right, they were hired to get it through the EA process and get it approved. They were not hired to do objective testing or studies - and that is more than evident from the so-called studies already completed. Look at the air quality statistics brought forward at Regional Committees and Council, and at Clarington Council numerous times. Those numbers came from the appendices of the Region's very own hired consultant's studies so they cannot dispute them. But those numbers were hidden deep in those pages and never, not once, brought forward by the consultants in all their presentations to committee, council, or the public at the public information sessions, even when asked about them. When air quality numbers are hundreds and thousands of times worse in Clarington than in East Gwillimbury, but they are rated as equal or both "neutral" for advantage or disadvantage, you know SOMETHING isn't right.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Confidence in the EA process has been dwindling as it has become increasingly evident that results appear to be manipulated in such a way as to promote or ensure the desired outcome of the process. This is not wild speculation. It seems so abundantly obvious if anyone takes the time to actually read not only the executive summary of these studies, but also dig deep into the bowels of the consultant's analysis to extract the fact from the faeces.

That so many of our elected officials are taken in by this spin and haven't taken the time to flush out the truth for themselves is highly disturbing. These are the people who are entrusted with our health and well-being, yet they refuse to listen to the groundswell of doctors in Durham Region who are vehemently opposed to this incinerator. They refuse to read the medical journals or numerous studies that would support the contention that there are emissions that cannot be captured by present technology - emissions that are bioaccumulative and dangerous to humans, especially in the fetal stages, infants and toddlers, and those with chronic illness who are already compromised. Tiny nanoparticles that can penetrate all organs including the brain through the blood/brain barrier.

They are entrusted with keeping our environment safe and healthy, yet refuse to listen to experts or environmental groups and choose instead to believe the consultants who are paid to PROMOTE incineration, the lobby groups and the industry.

They should be protecting agriculture in the region, including livestock operations, but have ignored expert studies and peer review literature which explains the risks and already proven effects on the food chain.

They should be caring a lot more than they are - and should show some common sense. Mayor Abernethy continues say they MUST push this EA through (though he neglects to say it should be done properly instead of FAST). The way this EA is being conducted, speed is so much more important than accuracy, and speed is a good way to hide many of the facts that should be made public knowledge.

Take the ridiculous reasons given by most Regional Councillors for approving the Courtice 01 site as the preferred site for the incinerator to be built - so that they can get ALL the information needed to make an informed decision. Then they went ahead and made a MAJOR decision in the EA process steps WITHOUT having the necessary information to make that decision. Talk about loony and backward. They needed to have technology information before choosing the site. They completely ignored the information given to them by residents and doctors and experts regarding air quality, for example, using that fake excuse that they want to get more information. Why make such an important decision without having the information first? We know why - it is an excuse they can use to push the EA farther and farther down the road and enable it to skip over information that should be given tough scrutiny. Instead it will get short shrift.

The public is not being fooled, other than a few who have listened to their politicians and not questioned any of the information or done any research themselves. And those are the people who won't be changed anyway. They're probably still using that old DDT in their yards and have kept the asbestos in their walls and don't worry about it because they're not sick yet. They probably smoke too (no lung cancer yet) and think there will be hundreds of jobs to run this new facility. They certainly haven't done their homework there, either.

The incinerator lobby can be excused to some degree for their shameless promotion of EFW, WtE, incineration or whatever you want to call it. They get paid for it. But the fact that our politicians in whom we place our trust are shamelessly promoting it and not even asking questions is totally inexcusable and disgraceful.

That our Mayor Abernethy and Regional Councillors Charlie Trim and Mary Novak put the Region AHEAD of Clarington is disgraceful and inexcusable. Where they got the idea that their first allegiance is to the Region, above Clarington and its residents is not hard to figure out. They are being used by the Region to get what the Region wants. And they haven't even figured that out yet.

It is unbelievable that these three voted AGAINST the motion by Brian Nicholson that said if a municipality was an unwilling host, the region would not force an incinerator on them. They would not even protect their own municipality - the Region as always comes first. None of the three can claim they are being protective of Clarington or NOT putting the Region first in all things incinerator.

This is why these three must NEVER be allowed to be re-elected in Clarington. They have given up their right to speak for us since they have never spoken for us. They speak for the Region at all times. This is something none of us should forget, no matter how this incineration farce turns out. They have not stood up for Clarington. Only our four local councillors have done so. Hats off to Councillors Foster, Hooper, Woo and Robinson. They are the only ones looking our for our welfare, and it can't be easy with the pressure from the Region and from our Mayor. They deserve our gratitude and our support.

Now comes the PR farce the Mayor is trying to foist upon the good citizens of Clarington. These people who will be speaking are not experts on incineration. They are promoters, lobbyists, but where are the experts? How can residents give their councillors questions to ask the presenters before they hear them speak? Our hands are tied and the Mayor knows it. That is why these people were invited by our Mayor are being promoted in this forum rather than at an open forum where residents can ask questions.

There is so much more to say on this subject and it will be said. The entire scenario as it is playing out simply disgusts me. All that I hold dear, namely fairness, openness, honesty, transparency... they are all missing from this entire process. The dirty little bag of tricks continues but is not fooling anybody. Instead it is strengthening those in opposition to this entire debacle. The word is rapidly spreading. They may have the votes at Regional Council to approve this incinerator. But WE have the votes at the ballot box, and we will not forget.

35 comments:

  1. The picture clinches it for me! The Mayor of Clarington has violated his own municpal by-law that says one of the duties of the Mayor is "To represent and support the decisions of Council declaring its will and explicitly and implicitly obeying its decisions in all things".

    That sure doesn't leave any leeway for spin. The man has not represented or supported the decisions of his own council, nor has he obeyed them. And he sure as heck has not supported his own constituents. He must be held accountable. I'd like to hear his excuse for this violation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just watched a TV ad for Fedex this evening that asked the question "are we leaders or lemmings"

    I think this a question that our Mayor and Regional Councillors Trim and Novak should ask themselves......I already have the answer!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm offended that our mayor considers the residents of Clarington to be so stupid as to not see what he is up to. He has been promoting incineration every chance he gets and he's doing it again. He'll get pro-incinerator people to talk next about zero waste and stabilized landfill, so they'll put a negative spin to it.

    Why not have an open and fair debate with both sides well represented? Why not? Because the pro incineration side is afraid to have to answer questions they've been skirting so far and continue to skirt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm offended by the lack of representation by my regional councillor, Mary Novak. She has not stood up for Clarington once in this. She has lost my vote and the votes of my family and most of my neighbours. We will continue to spread the word about her.

    Her "sitting on the fence" is akin to endorsing what the region has been doing to us. There is no excuse. I live in south Courtice in a NEW subdivision not far from the approved site. Mary voted to approve that site in Courtice. I will never forgive her for that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The author of this blog asks the question "Who will speak for us"?

    The short answer is, our four Local Councillors (Foster, Robinson, Hooper and Woo).

    However, even though they outnumber Mayor Abernethy and Reg. Councillors Trim and Novak, our three so-called reps (when they bow to Roger Anderson at the Region)are not taking the Clarington message with them!

    So, "Who speaks for us"? We do!

    If you want your voice heard, send emails to Abernethy, Trim and Novak and tell them you don't approve of what they are doing.

    Semd emails to your Local Councillor and tell him you do support their position.

    Attend Council meetings, sign up as a delegate and let them know what you think. Remember, they're supposed to be working for you.

    Show up at public rallies in support of the people who are organizing opposition to this insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm with you all the way. We are not being represented at the Region and I don't know why our 3 regionals would think that their first allegiance is to Durham Region and not to Clarington. That leaves Clarington with absolutely NO representation at the Region at all. Does that make any sense? Apparently it does to Abernethy, Novak and Trim.

    So, do all the other municipalities have NO representation like Clarington? I don't think so. Our 3 were convinced by someone (Mr. Anderson, I presume?) that they had to represent the region first and foremost. The fact that they believe him or agree with that is reason enough to NOT vote for anyone in 2010.

    Oh, 2010, just when their little project (incinerator) will be built. What a wonderful reminder for all of us right before the election!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am in Ward 2. Mr. Hooper has my support and my vote. Thank you and keep up the good work, Mr. Hooper. Thank you for listening to us.

    Ms Novak does not have my support anymore and will not have my vote in 2010. Name recognition used to be enough for the "hometown girl". But no longer. With all the new families in Wards 1 and 2 now with all the new subdivisions and more to come in the next couple of years, no one will care about name recognition. The name recogintion Ms. Novak will have now will be negative, forever connected to the incineration issue and to the Regional Chair. I supported her years ago and again in 2006. Never again. How could I be so blind? How could she be so blind? I am so disappointed.

    And the Mayor? I don't even need to comment on his behaviour. It's a waste of energy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What a bizarre spectacle!

    On Monday, Feb. 11 our Council met at "Fort Temperence".

    It started a few minutes late as the mayor was not ready to begin at the schedules time (7 pm), and after going through the usual formalities, he allowed his friend from Sweden to usurp most of the eveing with his very questionable'facts and figures' that made up a powerpoint presentation.

    Following that, our Councillors, especially Foster, Robinson, Hooper and Woo, had some very legitimate questions of the speaker; most of which he coulndn't answer without the preface "I think...."

    I for one thought it was a joke.

    In any event, the 21 members of the public, most of whom participated in a rally outside in the freezing cold for almost an hour prior to the circus inside, never got a chance to make their
    delegations. Some had hired babysitters and a few actually had taken time of work ("on their own dime" as our illustrious Mayor would say)

    The other 'half' of the meeting that never was, will be conducted on Wed. night, starting at 5 pm.

    Most people felt somewhat intimidated by the many uniformed (outside firm) security guards.

    Can't imagine what the Mayor was afraid of....other than the truth!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would make a correction to the picture.

    There can be no citizen of the Region, except possibly for the most obtuse, who does not sympathize with, and share, the concerns of Clarington.

    I would rather have the picture say: "Anderson 1st!".

    The incinerator is an Anderson pet project and the population be damned!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Carol in ward2
    I am in total agreement with what P. Gibson said in his comment saturday Feb 09/2008.If the mayor violated his own muncipal by-law then surely Mayor Abernethy we the voters in Clarington are due an honest explanation from yourself as to why, or at least your fellow councillors should know the reason you violated your own municipal by-laws.I assure you I will be in touch with my local representative and hopefully he knows why.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's sad and rather ironic that residents of Clarington have only now begun to express disdain for the bed they made for themselves. Ballots were cast for a man who had NEVER held a public position and as a result, Clarington got the mayor (and the council) its voters willingly elected.

    After the election dust settled, Abernethy's office sat vacant. He skipped more council meetings than he attended. For this, he was panned in the local media for playing hooky - Clarington's absentee mayor. To him, this was a part-time job that he'd learn as he went. He regularly leaned on other council members to explain his role in meetings. He even considered slashing his own salary so expectations of his performance would be reduced. This is the man now calling the shots on the future of Clarington.

    Abernethy was and still is a business man. As such, he knows only how to close deals in the pursuit of dollar signs. It's unfortunate that these dollar signs come hand-in-hand with carcinogens.

    How about Charlie Trim? Trim spent decades working as an executive at Goodyear – one of Bowmanville’s worst air polluters and contributors of kerosene to Bowmanville Creek (http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/announce.cfm?ID=520&Lang=e). You voted for him, you got him.

    Council’s ineptitude doesn’t stop there but that’s enough about them.

    You can wave your future ballots in Abernethy’s face all you want. Chances are, he’s not interested in a second term and by then, you’ll be breathing in the result of his ill-informed, deceitful efforts.

    Clarington, the time for you to make noise is NOW. You can wave placards and sign petitions but until that crowd grows from 100 to 1,000 strong, screaming-bloody-murder protestors, it’s all for naught. Find a credible, well-recognized environmental organization to lend support be it protestors, postering campaigns or advice on how to be heard.

    You also need to expand your voice and to do this, the media need to be engaged – constantly. Look beyond your own backyard. As a municipality that’s being lied to, you need to make this an issue of national importance. Call John Barber at the Globe, call Tyler Hamilton and Carola Vyhnak at the Star and more importantly – don’t stop! TV stations, radio and newspapers need to know you’re angry and you and your children are not going to accept that a man who could care less about his job is acting in the best interests of his constituents.

    My sincere apologies for having to sign his anonymous. I hope it doesn't diminish the message.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As we expected, Roger Anderson told Ajax council last night that Clarington's unwillingness to host, will mean nothing in his eyes.

    Nice to do it there and not tell Clarington himself, we have to find out in the papers.

    What I mean by expected, he said the same thing last year.

    I e-mailed all the local councillors last week to congratulate them on the motion, but I questioned why didn't they do it last summer like East Gwillmbury did.

    Only Willie Woo answered back. Pretty bad when I live in Ward 4 not three. He said they were expecting Jim Abernathy to follow the by-law that states he must listen to local decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I caught Regional Council this morning on TV. The attacks questions on Wendy by Trim and Novak's rudeness in cutting off her answer were disgusting. Abernethy's shameless promotion of his (not Clarington council's, which was made clear, but HIS) little promotion for EFW in the guise of "information sessions" was funny as he got the opposite answer than what he wanted. Made him look foolish and manipulative.

    When will these people learn that in trying to discredit delegations they only make themselves look small.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Personally I would say they did speak for us. All you have to do is drive around on garbage day and count the number of garbage bags at the end of driveways. Why are we allowing more than 1 bag of garbage a month? Because people would complain too much...so therefore they have spoken. Heavens, families can buy extra tags when they have children in the house to take care of diapers instead of being more responsible and using cloth.

    The politicians are following what we really are saying, not what you think we should be saying. While I don't necessarily support 100% the incinerator, until people's mindsets change, it is our best option.

    So it is time to get out of the clouds and back down into reality! Lemmings will continue to purchase convenience over the environment any day.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Welcpme to the debate blogger # 14.
    You are correct in your point about people putting out more waste at curbise, but it is your individual choice. When you purchase products at any store, return the excess packaging; that is not what to purchased; it was the product. Stay with the lemmings if you choose, or, go with real leadership towards reducing overpackaging and using your tax dollars and your health risks to solve the probelms for the multinational corporations. I for one cinsistently return 'their ' garbage and make them deal with it, they will soon change the mthods they are using now -- having you pay for their waste. Squeek up Mr/Ms blogger and do what is right for you, your family and your community,

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks for publishing my last comment! I must say I was shocked...I have expected it to be censored. ;)

    Ah yes, but don't buy that product that has the packaging in the first place and the message goes back to the mfr. What does the grocery/dept store care, they aren't charged any more for their waste than your or I - just look at their recycling efforts. Most stores seem to put both paper and other waste all together. So what message are you truly saying.

    As far as politicians standing up for what is right...they will stand up for the side that their proverbial bread is buttered on...big business. If they try anything to change slightly packaging requirements, etc. they will lose their sponsorship. If we as a culture stop purchasing the stuff with the packaging - don't buy the bubble chickens, fruit/veggie trays, cookies, etc. Bet they won't be produced anymore or at least find a different method of packaging that is environmentally friendly. So while I applaud your efforts, it is a little bit too late.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Note to Uncensored Anonymous:
    Nope - we only censor when absolutely necessary, such as obscenities, or name calling. It's okay to be blunt, but not vulgar. And it's definitely okay to have differing points of view.

    But unlike our Mayor, we encourage healthy debate (he stated at Council that he feels debate is unproductive!).

    Your views are very welcome, Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I was appalled at the Mayor's attempts to justify his actions and to use the Municipal Act in the way he did. He obviously has no understanding of the Act and is attempting to spin it.

    One of the delegations spoke of laying an official complaint with MMAH. He should follow through. This Mayor is out of control.

    ReplyDelete
  19. He will! Trust me. He will also file with the Ontario Ombudsman.
    I was going to say that you're right, this guy is "out of control" but the truth is, he never was "in control" to start with.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If Jim Abernethy wants to put Durham Region first, before the municipality of Clarington, he should run for Regional Chair. Oh, that's right, that's not an elected position. It is a lobbied for position. Do a little horse-trading with regional councillors to persuade them to vote for you as Chair. You don't have to please the people at all, you only have to make promises to and please the regional councillors.

    So Mayor Abernethy, since you have not pleased the people of your own municipality and have consistently put Durham Region first, why not go for the Chair's position in 3 more years?

    Only consider running for Clarington if you do a complete turn-around and decide to put Clarington first. You seem totally incapable of doing that. It is unbelievable that you can even call yourself "Mayor of Clarington".

    ReplyDelete
  21. All this is our own fault in Clarington. We were blindsided (or blind) and didn't see what (who) we were electing in the last election. Did the terrible three lie to us when they said they would "represent us"? Did they ever actually say they would represent our best interests?

    I sure don't remember hearing them say they would put the Region first and Clarington could try to fend for itself under the Region's heavy hand, without any help or representation from our mayor and 2 regional councillors. I didn't hear them say that residents of Clarington would have to be the ones to fight to be heard at the Region, or even at our very own Clarington council.

    We have 4 local councillors who appear to be listening and supporting what the residents want. The seem to be doing their own research too. We are lucky to have them. We are unlucky to have the other 3.

    I won't be fooled again (thanks, Who).

    ReplyDelete
  22. To me, although I think it probably has nothing to do with it.

    I'm suprised that Courtice citizens hasn't asked to seperate from Clarington and join Oshawa.

    After all, Clarington council does nothing to stop Durham from trashing their town, yet Oshawa council has been the leader in trying to stop things, like the incinerator from going to their neighbors.

    Besides, don't they get most services from Oshawa anyway. They're even grouped with them in the phonebook.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I would love to start a movement to separate Courtice from Clarington and move to have Oshawa take it over. Things couldn't be any worse.

    Look at where ALL the negatives are located - the new sewage plant, nuclear plant, auto wreckers, and now an incinerator. Clarington continues to "dump" on Courtice and I'm sick of it.

    Oshawa has wanted to have Courtice as part of the city for many years. Maybe now is the time to pursue that course of action. Courtice residents are not happy, and the rest of Clarington shouldn't be either. Or for that matter the rest of Durham Region. I'd love to see Oshawa separate from the region and go its own way. It could do better for its residents too.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am a Clarington staff member and I have been reading Watchdog for some time now. I am sorry I have to be anonymous, however I cant afford to loose my position. I am compelled to write and my opinion represents many of both the bargaining unit and management.

    Lets begin with the election of the current mayor. If Mutton had his trial and was found not guilty before the election, the new mayor would not be there. Staff respected the last mayor, no matter what some folk say about him, we had a leader.
    The current mayor has said to senior staff publically that if he wants their professional opinion he will ask for it, is this mayor out of control, yep he is and we have staff leaving for greener pastures because of it, just look at the EDO leaving from the Board of Trade. The 4 members of local council are well respected, especially Robinson and Foster, so we are not totally a laughing stock.
    The EFW process has been directed by the mayor, he has reduced delegations by 5 mins and allowed presentations for 90 mins, the entire process has staff scared to do their jobs and give our professional opinions based on fear of repraisal.

    I will continue to offer any insight that I can and I would like to compliment Jim Richards on his efforts to date.

    Remember the public can register as a presentation without having a time limit, just like the mayors friends.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I don't believe "Anonymous" the previous person is a Clarington staff member as none would risk their jobs by posting such comments. However, whoever it is makes some good points. The present Mayor is not a leader. He is a follower (of Mr. Anderson). He can't put Clarington first because he doesn't know how to lead - only how to follow the Region's lead. That is sad.

    It is sad for Clarington and Clarington residents. You'll never see our Mayor disagree with Anderson or stand up to him. He follows, follows, follows, as do our 2 regional councillors. That is not leadership. In the next election we had better find someone who can actually think for themselves and LEAD. Ex-mayor Mutton may not be that person as he was known for bullying residents, but he did know how to lead. Still, we need someone who can not only lead but can also listen to residents and put Clarington's best interests ahead of the Region as a whole. If not, who will speak for Clarington? Like Watchdog says, right now there is no one. You can't depend on mayors or councillors from the other municipalities to put Clarington first, although some have spoken up for us more than our own Mayor and councillors at the region.

    We'd better start looking for replacement candidates right now so that in a little less than 3 years we will have strong candidates and can get rid of what we have in those positions today. Too bad we have to wait so long for a change. A lot of damage can be done in 4 years and they have a good jump on that already.

    ReplyDelete
  26. To Clarington staff member,

    If I remember correctly, John Mutton had already lost the 2006 election before the charges came out.

    The first polls, on this very website, in April 2006, had Jim Abernathy well in the lead.

    I'm not sure when the charges came out but I'm sure it was after April.

    I'm only saying this, because you say the trial lost the election for former mayor Mutton. Which I think is incorrect.

    If anyone wants to correct me if I'm wrong, you may go ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  27. To Anonymous: re Mutton

    Seems to me the charges had already been laid well before election day. The actual trial did not follow until a few months later. And he was exonerated as I recall.

    Had this ugly scene not presented itself prior to the election, I feel quite firmly that Mutton would have won.

    I doubt very much if the current dud will win re-election; he's already proven he's not capable of doing the job, and he still has another 2 1/2 yeard to screw up even more.

    The next elextion will be a landslide for whoever runs against Abernethy, and I suggest Trim and Novak will be gone as well.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Whoever is right about the charges, I don't see how Mutton could win here as Mayor again unless there is only Abernethy (or Trim or Novak) running. Too many saw the bully side of him, and he was too developer-friendly. We need someone instead who would be environmentally friendly and fiscally friendly for a change.

    Then there is (was) Total Hockey. And all the arenas and things that should have come more slowly. Mutton is the reason for the high tax increases (over 8% last year, over 4% this year). We're still paying for all his spending!

    ReplyDelete
  29. If you think Mutton was the reason for our unprecedented tax hikes (and I would agree in large part) just wait until you see your taxes jump after Abernethy, Trim, Novak and Anderson foist the cost of this incinerator on your door step.

    It has been predicted that the average homeowner will see a tax hike of about $400.00, and that's only for the costs they're willing to tell us about now; the capital cost of the building. Wait until they add in all the additional hidden costs for tipping fees, trucking, road upgrades and haulage fees for the toxic ash.

    Remember, they don't yet have a business plan for this monster (no doubt they do, but none of them have the testicular fortitude to actually tell us the truth yet). They'll wait until it's a done deal.

    They have already broken Provincial rules that says they were to announce a potential site, a technology and a vendor at the same time by only announcing the site first. They will dribble the information out as they see fit; as their scheme unfolds. A 'real' honest environmental assessment about health and environmental effects will be the second last thing they trot out, and if it's conducted by the same salesmen who are conducting the EA for them now (the same people who hold membership in the pro-incinerator lobby organization) then we won't trust or believe their findings anyway; what a colosal farce. The last thing the Abernethy, Trim Novak and Anderson will reveal will be the actual cost, and I guarantee it will be very conservative in the estimates. Bottom line, it's going to cost you big time.

    Remember too, that as taxes will go up for this monolith, your property values will decrease at the same time. So far, we are only talking real costs to the homeowner. Consider too what this will do for tourism and for the demise of local beef, poultry, and produce farmers.

    We're only talking dollars here, and not even getting into health effects, health costs, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Any elected officials or members of the public who claim they can't get enough information about this incinerator debacle, only need to call up DEW (Durham Environment Watch) on their computer.

    This site offers almost all you ever wanted to know about the dangers and costs of incineration. It is so fair, that it also publishes letter from those among us who think it's ok!

    It is a great source of information, and will answer most all basic (and some very complex) questions. Well worth adding to your 'favorites' listing.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Pickering has joined the fight agaisnt the incinerator.

    On a 4-2 vote held at their last meeting they motion passed to support Clarington's unwillingness.

    "Easy to say no to incineration" Roger Anderson later said. The news also said he was suprised by the Pickering motion.

    So obviously he doesn't care.

    What will happen if, and it seems like all of Southern Durham is against it, if the three northern municipalities say no as well.

    What will Roger Anderson do then.

    ReplyDelete
  32. With the vote from Pickering Council not to support an incinerator, along with Oshawa, Ajax and Clarington, it should be a done deal....NO INCINERATOR.

    Unfortunately, many of the councillors from those same municipalities are also on Regional Council, and there, they seem to favour it. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Look's like Scugog won't be helping the fight against the incinerator.

    Maryilin Pierce said this week that Durham needs to go ahead with the process instead of halting it.

    So now it's 4-1 muncicipalities against against for.

    No word on Brock and Uxbridge.

    Of course even if only 1 is for incineration, I think that's all Roger Anderson thinks he needs.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The Northern Municipalities need to have the Chairman onside to direct projects for them behind the scenes, so they will all be with Roger. Osh, Pick, Ajax have always had a free vote on things. Clarington used to be a force prior to this term, now they are a farce.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Adenocarcinoma accounts for 29.4% of lung cancers. It usually originates in peripheral lung tissue. Most cases of adenocarcinoma are associated with smoking. However, among people who have never smoked ("never-smokers"), adenocarcinoma is the most common form of lung cancer. A subtype of adencarcinoma, the bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, is more common in female never-smokers, and may have different responses to treatment. http://www.chantixhome.com/

    ReplyDelete