Scratches to Sketches
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/03/superbug-scare-charts/62962/
- - -
Want more stories like this? Get the best of Digg by email →
Received from a friend! What do you think? I can't vouch for veracity of these claims?
You can drive the 400 mile length of the New York Thruway (I-90), from
Buffalo to New York City , a toll road with fully staffed toll booths, for peanuts.
Then there is the cost of driving across the top of Toronto on Hwy
407........everything is electronic and automated, drivers pay for the camera operations and the billing
costs in addition to the exorbitant toll rates... and the Ontario Gov. acts as 'enforcer' in
collecting the unpaid tolls!!
Even Al Capone and his crew never had it as good as this during the
bootleg liquor days of the 1920's and 1930's!! .....It is very expensive to travel this road!
I thought you might like to read this, it's a real eye opener, what a rip-off!!
ETR 407
In the early 1990's Ontario was almost bankrupt under Bob Rae's NDP government.
But it desperately needed new roads, as it still does today. So the
Rae government built a toll
road around Toronto and it was a great success. It was a cash cow
called the 407 ETR. The
Conservative government of Mike Harris then later foolishly leased
this road for 99 years to a
Quebec-based company for a substantial amount of money. This was in
May 1999, and was
done to reduce the deficit and look good.
Before the Harris government could lease the road, however, they had
to pass new legislation
to allow this, because never before had a 'public road' been sold to a
private company. This very
flawed legislation was passed in November 1998. The new Quebec owners
then closed the deal
and Ontario had 'sold' it's first highway.
This Quebec company then sold the road at a profit to Spanish owners, thus
assuring that profits from the road would never be taxed in Canada .
As part of this deal, the Ontario government agreed that individual
license plate renewal would be
denied if there were any outstanding tolls against that plate and it's
owner. So this arrangement, in
practice, made our government a collection agency for a privately
held, for-profit foreign consortium.
In addition, the terms of the deal stated that there would be no
statute of limitations on these bills
and that they would never go away even if the citizen went bankrupt.
Even your income tax has a statute of limitations.
The 407 ETR refuses now, as then, to produce any photographic or other
evidence, that what they bill
is an accurate reflection of the offending vehicles presence on their
roadway. So there is no
accountability and OUR Government still collects the SPANISH bills for
them. Oh, I forgot to mention
that the Spanish company decides on the interest rate on these forever
bills and currently it is 26.82
per cent compounded monthly but it varies based on the whims of the
Spanish owners.
And there is a definite problem with who gets billed. In very short
order after the sale of the highway,
according to the media of that time, 100,000 citizens who had never
been on the road had been
incorrectly billed. The MPP's were deluged with complaints and so the
Conservatives under then
transportation minister David Turnbull told the private Spanish
company to clean up their act. Until
there was evidence of that happening their collection deal was
cancelled. This was in 2000. But in
2005 the 407 ETR went to court to reinstate its original sweetheart
deal. The judge ruled in it's favour
even though this company still showed no accountability and still did
not produce evidence of the
legitimacy of it's charges.
The government of Premier Dalton McGuinty should have appealed this
decision but did not. Now the government is the collection agency for
the Spanish consortium. Now the agreement covers any
vehicle that is owned by the person who has an offending licence
plate. So if you own six vehicles
and one of them is alleged to have been on their road, your government
will not issue any licence
plates for any of your vehicles until you pay the 'alleged bill' at
your government licence office,
whether it is correct or not.
The toll in 1999 was seven cents a kilometer. and now it is 19.85
cents a kilometer.
There is also a monthly accounting fee of $2.50 and a video charge of $3.25.
That is far beyond the rate of inflation and there is no control on
how much this foreign company can charge.
The tolls here are higher than anywhere that I travel. This road is
simply built through corn fields, whereas in Mexico or Italy there
are mountains, tunnels, bridges, etc., and still those countries have
tolls that are substantially lower. You can travel from here to Los
Angeles for less toll than it costs to cross Toronto .
I believe the current toll in Mexico is 13 cents per kilometer, but
that includes automatic medical coverage for everyone in the vehicle.
With all the road tax that we Ontarians pay, the last thing we ever
expected was a toll road.
We need to buy back this road and break the deal with this consortium.
I find this whole arrangement both offensive and intimidating..
If any Canadian government is going to collect for any privately held
company, change the rules on the statute of limitations, etc.. then it had better collect for all private companies on the same terms. This current arrangement discriminates against all other private companies.
STAY OFF THE 407 AND STARVE THEM OUT OF EXISTENCE
--
F. Black Schwarz
Hello everyone,Health Canada has asked The Royal Society of Canada to review safety code 6, which recommends safety limits on microwave radiation (wireless). There seems to be some persons on the panel that have private interests that would make this a conflict of interest. As this is very important to the health of all Canadians, we need to ensure that any members of the panel with a conflict of interest not be included in the review.
Please take the time to email Lori Penner, the woman who is organizing the petition with your name, city/town and province.
Thanks, Melissa
https://rsc-src.ca/en/expert-panels/rsc-reports/review-safety-code-6-potential-health-risks-radiofrequency-fields-from
Call to Action!
We need your signatures before end of today to let The Royal Society of Canada know of our concerns re the constitution of the expert panel for the 'Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radio frequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices.'
Please read below and email Lori at lorraine.penner@gmail.com with your name, city/town, and province to be added to the petition. Put 'add me to the petition that has concerns about the SC6'.
------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
With every respect for the Royal Society of Canada's reputation for professionalism and integrity, we are concerned about the constitution of your expert panel for the 'Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radio frequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices.' There is at least the appearance of significant potential for bias and/or conflict of interest among some of its members, and we urge strongly that the Royal Society reconstitute the panel (even if it means beginning the study afresh) solely of members with
(i) no appreciably material link, past or present, in their personal or professional lives to the wireless telecommunications industry and (ii) who have not staked an academic or otherwise public reputation on a specific view of the adequacy of Health Canada's Safety Code 6 or the potential health effects, or lack thereof, of radio frequency fields from wireless telecommunications devices.
It would be regrettable for the impartiality of any of your reports to be called into question, or for the authority and reputation of the Royal Society to be compromised in any way, and we are sure you would agree that those experts with such links and/or existing positions ought to be removed from the panel.
While it is right and laudable for the Royal Society to have, as it appears to have done, attempted to staff this panel with members from diverse personal, professional and (somewhat diverse) geographical backgrounds, only those individuals capable of approaching an expert panel study with no potential for prejudice respecting the subject of that study, and no appearance of potential for such prejudice, ought to participate in that expert panel if it is designed to be "independent, comprehensive and evidence-based input into the public policy development process of Canada," as the Royal Society website describes its work.
We therefore, and without any wish to impugn the credibility of these individuals generally, question the inclusion in this particular panel of, for example, Dr. Daniel Krewski, who has been involved in studies partially funded by the Canadian Wireless and Telecommunications Association; Dr. Louise Lemyre, a close colleague of Dr. Krewski and whose credentials in social psychology in any event would appear ill-suited to a study of the biological effects of radio frequency radiation; Dr. Kenneth Foster, who has made an academic position clear in a set of book reviews recently published in the journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, in which he expresses skepticism of claims of radio frequency radiation health effects; Dr. John Moulder, who is alleged to have "earned hundreds of thousands of dollars disputing the existence of adverse EMF health effects, even those accepted by most other members of the EMF community" (Microwave News - http://microwavenews.com/RR.html); and Dr.Frank Prato, who has made public statements questioning the wisdom of precautionary measures by public authorities against potential health effects from radio frequency radiation, and thus holds an existing and publicly stated position on the policy question.
The matter of health effects from radio frequency radiation and the use of wireless communication devices is one of the great looming public policy concerns of our time, touching, because of the extensive proliferation of wireless technologies, the health of nearly every Canadian (including our susceptibility to cancer and neurological and cardiac disorders, and our fertility and the integrity of our genetic heritage), touching the politics and philosophy of precaution in public policy, the question of corporate influence in public policy, and both current and future health-care costs of all Canadian taxpayers. Before a senior, respected and authoritative body like the Royal Society issues serious and influential policy advice on a matter of such broad public import, surely it would behoove the body to gather for that purpose a panel of not only capable, qualified and knowledge-seeking but also completely neutral-minded scientists whose sole purposes are to discover the truth of the matter and make reasoned recommendations based on their honest findings, untainted by bias or conflict of interest, the potential for bias or conflict of interest or even the perception of same. Any other course would be a profound disservice to Canadians, an abdication of societal responsibility whose dangerous consequences could resonate for generations to come. We trust the Royal Society will take its moral position seriously, take every appropriate measure to maintain the integrity of this expert panel report and in so doing retain the deserved trust of right-thinking Canadians.
Yours faithfully,