It is a good progam so he needs to leve it be!!
http://www.scandalpedia.ca/Scandals/InSite_en.html
Clement and Insite
In September 2003, the former Liberal government granted the Vancouver Costal Health Authority (VCHA) an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to launch a supervised injection site pilot research project known as Insite. It also provided $1.5 million to support the evaluation of the three-year pilot project.
Tony Clement, Tony Clement, Minister of Health (Source: pm.gc.ca)
After one year of operation, on September 28, 2004, an initial assessment on the impact of Insite was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The data revealed that:
* no fatalities had occurred in the facility,
* a large number of referrals were made to addiction counseling and withdrawal services by site counselors; and,
* the facility had been well managed and the staff was highly rated by the clients.
Since then, more research has shown Insite has decreased the incidence of drug paraphernalia on public streets, decreased the practice of sharing dirty needles, helping prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C among drug users, and increased the rate of addicts seeking rehabilitation and counseling services [1].
In the weeks leading up to the December 31st 2006 deadline to renew the funding and conditions to keep the site open, Conservative Health Minister Tony Clement stated that there had been no evidence to suggest that the site did in fact serve its intended purpose [2].
There was an immediate backlash against these remarks from the City of Vancouver and advocates of the program from across the country. Minister Clement responded by announcing on September 1, 2006 that he would defer the closure of the site until December 31, 2007 (in spite of recommendations from Health Canada bureaucrats that Insite receive a three-and-a-half year extension.) As well, the Minister provided no additional funding to assist the operation of the site.
In October 2007, the Conservative government announced a $63.8-million National Anti-Drug Strategy over two years which focused on enforcement, treatment and prevention, and had no harm-reduction measures to help limit the spread of infectious disease.
The Conservative view of Insite faced another challenge when, on May 27th, 2008, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that federal laws making possession of illegal drugs in a safe injection site an offence were unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ordered the federal government to rewrite the laws so that secure injection facilities such as Insite were exempt. On May 29th, 2008, Minister Clement told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, “I can inform you today that I will be asking my colleague Rob Nicholson, the Minister of Justice, to appeal Justice Pitfield's decision at the earliest possible opportunity.”
At the 2008 AIDS Conference in Mexico, Minister Clement referred to harm reduction programs as “harm addition” [3]. During a scrum at the same conference, Mr. Clement was videotaped during a scrum in which he called Insite “an abomination.”
In a speech to the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) general council meeting in Montreal in August 2008, Mr. Clement attacked the CMA for supporting Insite, Canada’s only safe injection site. Mr. Clement questioned the ethics of doctors and nurses, “Is it unethical for health-care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance or purity or potency, drugs that cannot otherwise be legally prescribed?” [4]
Stephen Harper Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Dr. Brian Day, president of the Canadian Medical Association, responded to Mr. Clement by saying 79 per cent of members agree that the injection sites work because they advocate harm reduction. Dr. Gabor Mate said “The repugnant aspect is his attack on the morality and ethics of human beings who are trying to work with a very difficult population." and “Where does he appoint himself as a moral judge of professionals who he doesn't understand and knows nothing about?” [5]
The Conservatives have made no secret about favouring a “get tough on crime” approach over on harm reduction strategies. Stephen Harper campaigned on a promise to shut down Insite in order to divert more funds to law enforcement and jail services. As he said on the campaign trail: "We as a government will not use taxpayers' money to fund drug use…That is not the strategy we will pursue." [6]
References
[1] http://www.communityinsite.ca/science.html
[2] Harper must start rethinking his anti-drug policy: SAFE-INJECTION SITE: PM's correct choice is to OK facility's ongoing operation, The Province, August 6, 2006
[3] Ottawa Reoffends at AIDS Summit, Toronto Star, August 9, 2008
[4] Doctors denounce Clement for assailing B.C.'s safe-injection site, Canwest News Service, Monday, August 18, 2008; www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/minist/speeches-discours/2008_08_18-eng.php
[5] B.C. doctor calls Clement's Insite comments 'repugnant', The Globe and Mail. August 20, 2008 ; Speech, CMA general council meeting, August 18, 2008
[6] Victoria needs a little Insite: Harper's hardline approach to drugs threatens to kill safe-injection site in Vancouver, Times Colonist (Victoria), February 17, 2006
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
be careful on facebook.
This may have happened to people on facebook
Fake Facebook 'Add Friends' E-Mail Adds Malware
Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace give scam artists and virus writers new ways to package tried-but-true tricks. The latest example of this making the rounds is an e-mail that appears to be an invitation from Facebook to add a friend: A recipient who opens an attached image to take a look at their new friend instead opens the door for hackers to compromise his PC.
Internet security firm Websense warns about this latest scam, which takes advantage of common notifiers sent by Facebook to alert users when another user adds them as a friend on their social network:
The spammers included a zip attachment that purports to contain a picture in order to entice the recipient to double-click on it. The attached file is actually a Trojan horse.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/09/facebook_add_friends_e-mail_ad.html?nav=rss_blog
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/faceboom.jpg
Fake Facebook 'Add Friends' E-Mail Adds Malware
Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace give scam artists and virus writers new ways to package tried-but-true tricks. The latest example of this making the rounds is an e-mail that appears to be an invitation from Facebook to add a friend: A recipient who opens an attached image to take a look at their new friend instead opens the door for hackers to compromise his PC.
Internet security firm Websense warns about this latest scam, which takes advantage of common notifiers sent by Facebook to alert users when another user adds them as a friend on their social network:
The spammers included a zip attachment that purports to contain a picture in order to entice the recipient to double-click on it. The attached file is actually a Trojan horse.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/09/facebook_add_friends_e-mail_ad.html?nav=rss_blog
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/faceboom.jpg
Saturday, September 20, 2008
John Baird cancels Ottawa LRT during municipal election, helping ally Larry O'Brien big mistake
John Baird cancels Ottawa LRT during municipal election, helping ally Larry O'Brien
Former Treasury Board President John Baird (now Environment Minister) has been accused of interfering in the 2006 Ottawa municipal election by cancelling $200 million in federal funding for a light-rail transit (LRT) system in the middle of a hotly contested mayoral campaign [1].
Although Treasury Board and several other federal departments had already approved the funding, Baird was asked to review it by mayoral candidate Larry O'Brien, an opponent of the project and a Baird political ally. The project was strongly supported by former Ottawa Mayor Bob ChiarelliChiarelli, a political adversary of Baird's.
In spite of the fact that the $1 billion project had been approved by all levels of government, John Baird insisted that the project be approved by the new council that would be put in place after the municipal election.
A senior Treasury Board official told the House of Commons Government Operations and Estimates Committee that he didn't see the contract because Baird handled the file personallWouterse Wouters claimed it isn't Treasury Board's role to assess the cost-benefits of such a project [2]. Ottawa City Manager Kent Kirkpatrick said Baird's intervention was "unusual," especially given that there had been years of public discussion, environmental assessments and approvals from seven federal government departments. Testimony also showed that approximately 10 projects from other cities had been before Treasury Board during Mr. Baird's tenure, however the Ottawa LRT was the only one to have its funding pulled in the middle of a municipal election.
The LRT issue is believed to have significantly affected the outcome of the Ottawa mayoral election, and after the election the new city council cancelled the project [3]. The consortium that received the contract is now suing the city for $277 million.
Larry O'Brien, who defeChiarelliChiarelli to become mayor, currently faces criminal charges in a separate matter. References [1] Baird's rail ruling was political, documents show: Decision to pull back funding made despite Treasury Board, Finance support for project, The Ottawa Citizen, January 6, 2007 [2] Baird's interest in rail deal 'unusual,' committee told; Commons panel hears minister handled the file personally, The Ottawa Citizen, February 27, 2008 [3] Council kills light rail, blames federal government: Lack of guaranteed funding meant Ottawa had to hit 'reset button', The Ottawa Citizen, December 15, 2006
Friday, September 19, 2008
Aeroflot Accidents list
This is why i would fly us eu *can carriers sorry Aeroflot !
Incidents and accidents
Wikinews has related news:
Russian Boeing-737 crashes with 88 aboard
There are records of approximately 127 accidents involving Aeroflot aircraft and 6,875 fatalities (plus 20 people killed on the ground), making an average of 54.13 fatalities per accident since 1953. Until 1991, all civil aviation and aircraft in the Soviet Union, from the An-2 to the Il-86, (as well as some military aircraft), operated with Aeroflot's name on it.[23] This list includes accidents and incidents from Aeroflot-branded aircraft and excludes most accidents and incidents from subsidiaries such as Aeroflot-Nord.
On 10 July 1985, the deadliest published accident on Aeroflot occurred at Uchkuduk, Uzbek SSR when a Tu-154B-2 on Aeroflot Flight 7425 crashed killing all 200 aboard.
On 23 March 1994, an RAL-Russian Airlines[24] Airbus A310-304, operating Aeroflot Flight 593 crashed in Mezhdurechensk, Kemerovo Oblast, Russia after the auto-pilot partially shut off while the captain's 15-year-old son was allowed to sit in the pilot seat and "use" the controls.
On September 14, 2008, Aeroflot Flight 821 crashed. The flight flight operated by Aeroflot-Nord in a service agreement with Aeroflot. The air traffic controller noted that the plane was climbing and descending irratacally. He instucted the plane to abort the approach and to line back up with the runway. The plane confirmed that everything was fine but continued its approach. ATC again instructed it to abort the approach and to contact another controller. The plane again did not follow its instructions and the first contoller checked back in with the flight and told it to go around. Following this transmission, Aeroflot 821 transmitted a yell followed by a swear and contact was lost. The plane crashed into railroad tracks in Perm near central Russia. There were no survivors [25]. The crash was linked to engine failure.
Wikinews has related news:
Russian Boeing-737 crashes with 88 aboard
There are records of approximately 127 accidents involving Aeroflot aircraft and 6,875 fatalities (plus 20 people killed on the ground), making an average of 54.13 fatalities per accident since 1953. Until 1991, all civil aviation and aircraft in the Soviet Union, from the An-2 to the Il-86, (as well as some military aircraft), operated with Aeroflot's name on it.[23] This list includes accidents and incidents from Aeroflot-branded aircraft and excludes most accidents and incidents from subsidiaries such as Aeroflot-Nord.
On 10 July 1985, the deadliest published accident on Aeroflot occurred at Uchkuduk, Uzbek SSR when a Tu-154B-2 on Aeroflot Flight 7425 crashed killing all 200 aboard.
On 23 March 1994, an RAL-Russian Airlines[24] Airbus A310-304, operating Aeroflot Flight 593 crashed in Mezhdurechensk, Kemerovo Oblast, Russia after the auto-pilot partially shut off while the captain's 15-year-old son was allowed to sit in the pilot seat and "use" the controls.
On September 14, 2008, Aeroflot Flight 821 crashed. The flight flight operated by Aeroflot-Nord in a service agreement with Aeroflot. The air traffic controller noted that the plane was climbing and descending irratacally. He instucted the plane to abort the approach and to line back up with the runway. The plane confirmed that everything was fine but continued its approach. ATC again instructed it to abort the approach and to contact another controller. The plane again did not follow its instructions and the first contoller checked back in with the flight and told it to go around. Following this transmission, Aeroflot 821 transmitted a yell followed by a swear and contact was lost. The plane crashed into railroad tracks in Perm near central Russia. There were no survivors [25]. The crash was linked to engine failure.
Flight 821, flown under a combined service agreement with Aeroflot,[5] crashed on approach to Perm Airport on 14 September 2008. All 88 passengers, including 7 children, and 6 crew members were killed. The weather at the time of accident was rainy and foggy. The aircraft, a Boeing 737-500 registration VP-BKO, departed from Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport. A part of the Trans-Siberian Railway was reportedly damaged by the crash.[6] Following the accident and concerns about safety procedures, Aeroflot chief executive Valery Okulov announced it would be stripping Aeroflot-Nord of the right to use the brand name Aeroflot and would be severing all ties between the companies.[7][8] On spite of Mr Okulov's declarations, Aeroflot Nord denied the company would change its name. [9]
Date
Airline/Location
Aircraft Type/Registration
Fatalities
07.27.1953
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-12
12:12
Kanggye, North Korea
---
08.15.1957
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-14
23:23
Copenhagen, Denmark
SSSR-L1874
08.15.1958
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104A
64:64
Chita, Russia
---
10.17.1958
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104A
80:80
Kanas, Russia
---
11.16.1959
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-10
40:40
Lvov, Ukraine, USSR
SSSR-11167
12.13.1959
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18
29:29
Tashkent, Uzbekistan, USSR
---
02.26.1960
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-10
32:32
Lvov, Ukraine, USSR
SSSR-11180
08.17.1960
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18
35:35
Kiev, Ukraine, USSR
SSSR-75705
01.27.1962
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-10
13:13
Batataevka, Ukraine, USSR
SSSR-11148
06.28.1962
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-10A
81:81
Adler ,Russia
SSSR-11186
06.30.1952
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104A
84:84
Krasnoyarsk, USSR
SSSR-42340
09.02.1962
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104A
86:86
Khabarovsk, USSR
SSSR-42366
10.25.1962
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104B
10:10
Moscow, Russia
SSSR-42495
07.13.1963
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104B
35:35
Irkutsk, Russia
SSSR-42492
09.02.1964
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18B
87:87
Sakhalin, Russia
SSSR-75531
10.19.1964
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18
33:33
Mt. Avala, Yugoslavia
---
03.08.1965
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-124
25:25
Kuybyshev, Russia
SSSR-45028
02.17.1966
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-114B
21:21
Moscow (Sheremetyevo), Russia
SSSR-76457
11.16.1967
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18B
130:130
Sverdlovsk, Russia
SSSR-75538
02.29.1968
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18D
82:82
Bratsk, Russia
SSSR-74252
08.26.1969
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18
16:112
Moscow, Russia
---
01.28.1970
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
34:34
Batagai, Russia
SSSR-47701
01.29.1970
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-124
11:11
Murmansk, Russia
SSSR-45083
02.06.1970
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18
92:92
Samarkand, Uzbekistan, USSR
SSSR-75798
04.01.1970
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
45:45
SSSR-47751
---
05.15.1970
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-10
11:11
Kishiniev, Moldavia
SSSR-11149
07.18.1970
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-22
23:23
Atlantic Ocean
SSSR-0903
09.02.1970
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-124
37:37
Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine
SSSR-45012
12.31.1970
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18
93:93
Leningrad, Russia
SSSR-75773
03.31.1971
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-10
64:64
Voroshilovgrad, Russia
SSSR-11145
07.25.1971
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104B
97:126
Irkutsk, Russia
SSSR-42405
10.13.1971
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104B
20:20
Moscow, Russia
SSSR-42490
11.12.1971
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
47:47
Vinnitsa, Russia
SSSR-46809
12.01.1971
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
57:57
Saratov, Russia
SSSR-46788
05.04.1972
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-40
18:18
Bratsk, USSR
SSSR-87778
06.18.1972
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-10A
122:122
Kharkov, Ukraine
SSSR-11215
08.31.1972
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18
101:101
Magnitogorsk, Russia
SSSR-74298
10.02.1972
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18B
109:109
Adler, Russia
SSSR-75507
10.13.1972
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-14
174:174
Krasnaya Polyana, USSR
SSSR-86671
02.19.1973
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-154
66:100
Prague, Czechoslovakia
SSSR-85023
02.24.1973
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18
79:79
Leninabad, Russia
SSSR-75712
05.11.1973
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18
61:61
Semipalatinsk, Kazakastan
SSSR-75687
05.25.1973
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104A
100:100
Chita, Siberia
---
06.03.1973
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-144
6:6 + 8
Goussainville, France
SSSR-77102
08.18.1973
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
56:64
Baku, Azerbaijan
SSSR-46435
09.30.1973
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104B
108:108
Sverdlovsk, Russia
SSSR-42506
10.02.1973
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-12
10:10
Magadan, Russia
SSSR-12967
10.13.1973
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104B
119:119
Domodedovo, Russia
SSR-42486
12.08.1973
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104B
13:72
Moscow, Russia
SSSR-42503
12.16.1973
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-124
51:51
Vilnius, Lithuania
SSSR-45061
01.06.1974
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
24:24
Mukachevo, Russia
SSSR-46357
04.27.1974
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18
118:118
Leningrad, Russia
SSSR-75559
01.01.1975
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-12
16:16
Sam Neuq, Laos
---
01.03.1975
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-124
61:61
Moscow, Russia
SSSR-45037
07.15.1975
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-40
41:41
Batumi, Georgia (Soviet Union)
SSSR-87475
11.17.1975
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
38:38
Sukhumi, Georgia (Soviet Union)
SSSR-46467
11.20.1975
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
19:19
Kharkov, Ukraine
SSSR-46349
01.03.1976
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134
87:87
Moscow, Russia
SSSR-45036
02.09.1976
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104A
24:24
Irkutsk, Russia
SSSR-42327
03.05.1976
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18D
120:120 + 7
Voronezh, Russia
SSSR-75408
05.15.1976
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
52:52
Chernigov, Ukraine, USSR
SSSR-46534
06.01.1976
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-154A
46:46
Nacias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea
SSSR-85102
09.09.1976
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
90:90
Adler, Russia
SSSR-46518
11.28.1976
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104B
72:72
Moscow, Russia
SSSR-42471
12.17.1976
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
48:55
Kiev, Ukraine
SSSR-46672
01.13.1977
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104A
96:96
Near Alma Ata, Kazakastan
SSSR-42369
02.15.1977
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-18
77:77
Mineralnye Vody, Russia
SSSR-75520
05.27.1977
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-62
68:70 + 1
Havana, Cuba
SSSR-86614
12.09.1977
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
17:17
Tarko-Saley, USSR
SSSR-47695
10.07.1978
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-40
38:38
Sverdlovsk, Russia
SSSR-87437
01.15.1979
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
13:13
Minsk, Russia
SSSR-46807
03.17.1979
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-104B
---
Moskva-Vnukovo, Russia
SSSR-42444
03.20.1979
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-40
59:59
Chardzhow, Russia
SSSR-78390
08.11.1979
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134A
178:178
Dneprodzerzhinsk, Ukraine
SSSR-65735/SSSR-65816
08.23.1979
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-12
11:16
Enisseysk, USSR
SSSR-12963
08.29.1979
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-124
63:63
Kirsanov, Russia
SSSR-45038
09.03.1979
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
40:43
Adema, Russia
SSSR-46269
06.12.1980
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-40
29:29
Dushanbe, Russia
SSSR-87689
07.07.1980
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-154B
166:166
Alma-Ata, Kasakastan
SSSR-85355
02.07.1981
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134
70:70
Leningrad, Russia
---
08.24.1981
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
31:31
Zavitinsk, Russia
SSSR-46653
09.18.1981
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-40
33:33
Zeleznogorsk, Russian
SSSR-87455
11.16.1981
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-154B
99:167
Nor'ilsk, Russia
SSSR-85480
02.23.1982
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-26
16:16
Rostov-on-Don, USSR
SSSR-26627
06.28.1982
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-42
132:132
Moscow, Russia
SSSR-45229
07.06.1982
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-62
90:90
Moscow, Russia
SSSR-86513
08.14.1982
Aeroflot
Let 410
11:11
Sukhumi, Georgia (Soviet Union)
SSSR-67101
09.29.1982
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-62
14:77
Luxembourg
SSSR-86470
12.23.1982
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-26
16:16
Rostov, Russia
SSSR-26627
04.19.1983
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-40
21:21
Leninakan, Russia
SSSR-87291
08.30.1983
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134A
90:90
Alma-Ata, Kazakastan
SSSR-65129
12.24.1983
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
44:49
Leshukonskoye, Russia
SSSR-46617
08.05.1984
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-12
23:23
Nawabshah, Pakistan
SSSR-10232
10.11.1984
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-154B
174:175 + 4
Omsk, Russia
SSSR-85243
12.04.1984
Aeroflot
Let 410
10:10
Kostroma, USSR
SSSR-67225
12.23.1984
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-154B
110:110
Kranoyarsk, Russia
SSSR-85338
02.01.1985
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134A
58:80
Minsk, Belarus
SSSR-65910
05.03.1985
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134A
94:94
L'vov, Ukraine
SSSR-65856
07.10.1985
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-154B
200:200
Uchuduk, Uzbekistan
SSSR-85311
10.11.1985
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-40
14:14
Kutayissi, USSR
SSSR-87803
03.02.1986
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
38:38
Bugulma, Russia
SSSR-46423
07.02.1986
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134A
54:94
Syktyvar, Russia
SSSR-65120
10.14.1986
Aeroflot
Let 410
14:14
Ust-Maya, USSR
SSSR-67264
10.20.1986
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134A
70:94
Kuybyshev, Russia
SSSR-65766
12.12.1986
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134A
70:82
Berlin, E. Germany
SSSR-65795
01.18.1988
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-154B
11:143
Krosnovodsk, Turkmenistan
SSSR-85254
01.24.1988
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-40
27:31
Nizhnevartovsk, Russia
SSSR-87549
02.27.1988
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134A
20:51
Surgut, Russia
SSSR-65675
04.19.1988
Aeroflot
Let 410
17:17
Bagdarin, USSR
SSSR-67518
12.11.1988
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-76
78:78
Leninakan, Armenia
---
07.19.1989
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-26
10:10
Talourow Island, USSR
SSSR-26685
10.18.1989
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-76
57:57
Nasosny, Russia
SSSR-76569
10.20.1989
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-76
25:25
Leninakan, Russia
SSSR-76466
11.21.1989
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
34:42
Tyumem, Russia
SSSR-46335
01.13.1990
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134A
27:71
Pervouralsk, Russia
SSSR-65951
03.27.1990
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-76
11:11
Kabul, Afghanistan
SSSR-78781
06.12.1990
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-76
10:10
Kabul, Afganistan
SSSR-86905
08.01.1990
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-40
47:47
Stepanakert, Azerbaijan
SSSR-87453
05.23.1991
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-154
13:178
Leningrad, Russia
SSSR-85097
06.26.1991
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
10:10
Gulf of Finland
SSSR-46724
09.16.1991
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
13:13
Petropavlosk, USSR
---
09.26.1991
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-24
10:10
St. Petersburg, Russia
SSSR-46724
11.07.1991
Aeroflot
Yakovlev YAK-40
37:37
Makhackala, Russia
SSSR-87526
11.16.1991
Aeroflot
Antonov AN-12
20:20
Anderma, Russia
SSSR-47823
08.27.1992
Aeroflot
Tupolev TU-134A
84:84
Ivanovo, Russia
SSSR-65058
03.23.1994
Aeroflot
Airbus A310-304
75:75
Mezhdurechensk, Russia
F-OGQS
11.11.1998
Aeroflot
Ilyushin IL-62
0:0
Anchorage, Alaska, USA
RA-86564
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)
http://www.scandalpedia.ca/Scandals/AECL_en.html
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)
On November 18, 2007, Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) shut down its nuclear reactor at Chalk River, Ontario, halting production of two-thirds of the world’s radioisotopes used for medical diagnostic testing.
 Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resource(Source: pm.gc.ca) |
The shutdown, requested by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), resulted from the failure of AECL to install a backup power system to the reactor’s cooling pumps. According to an assessment by the Safety Commission, a major nuclear accident of proportions similar to the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster could occur at Canada's Chalk River reactor unless a backup power supply system capable of withstanding natural disasters was installed [1]. In testimony before the House of Commons Committee for Public Safety, Linda Keen, then President of the CNSC, testified that the risks posed by the Chalk River nuclear reactor, far exceeded international standards for nuclear risk tolerance [2].
The extended shutdown caused a global shortage of medical radioisotopes and forced the delay and cancellation of important medical testing for thousands of critically ill patients around the world. During the shutdown, the Conservative government came under intense criticism amid public concerns for not only continued medical care but also of nuclear safety.
Facing questions from the public, Conservative Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn claimed he was not made aware of the extended reactor shutdown and the ensuing isotope shortage until December 3, 2007. Health Minister Tony Clement claimed that he was only informed on December 5, 2008 [3].
However, reports and witness testimony after the isotope crisis say otherwise. Former AECL Chairman Michael Burns testified he briefed Mr. Lunn as early as November 22, 2007; MDS Nordion – the medical company that marketed the radio-isotopes – testified that they warned senior officials at the Department of Natural Resources about the isotope shortage on November 22, 2007; AECL itself e-mailed the Department on November 22, 2007; the nuclear medicine industry was informed of the shortage on November 27, 2007; and a source close to AECL told the Globe and Mail that an e-mail was sent to Mr. Lunn before Dec. 1, 2007 urging him to turn his attention to the mounting problem [4].
Rather than working with AECL to install the backup power supply system, Minister Lunn demanded Ms. Keen and the Safety Commission approve immediate start-up of the reactor, without the backup power supply, a violation of national law and international standards regarding nuclear safety [5].
Finally, on December 11, 2007, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-38, calling for the immediate start up of the reactor. In an effort to protect those in need of medical isotopes all parties supported the bill. By December 16, 2007, the backup power supply was installed and the reactor was restarted.
In the aftermath, experts criticized the Conservative government’s mismanagement of a routine shutdown that led to an international medical crisis. Why was there not adequate scrutiny to ensure the proper safety of the reactor before a shutdown was needed? If a shutdown and the resulting loss of radio-isotope production was predictable, why did the government not seek to purchase nuclear materials from other suppliers in order to maintain the supply of radio-isotopes?
Testifying before the House of Commons Health Committee, Health Minister Tony Clement claimed his department had made calls to foreign isotope suppliers but found “overseas suppliers could only increase their output by ten to 15 per cent. Furthermore, overseas suppliers indicated that the earliest they could provide the additional supply was Dec. 29." This was later refuted by Grant Malkoske, a vice-president at MDS Nordion, who told the Commons health committee his company had already received from South Africa by Dec. 12 about 20 per cent of required isotopes used to diagnose and treat cancer and heart patients. [6].
In the ensuing investigation, the House of Commons Natural Resources Committee called on Linda Keen, President of the CNSC to give her account of the events. However, late at night, on the eve of her appearance, Minister Lunn fired Ms. Keen for failure to "take into account the health of Canadians who, for medical purposes, depend on nuclear substances produced by nuclear reactors," delaying her testimony [7].
Two weeks later, her appearance rescheduled, Ms. Keen informed the committee that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s “primary responsibility in the case of this facility is to protect Canadians by ensuring that the nuclear facility is operating safely. Indeed, under the law, the commission did not have the authority to take the issue of isotopes into consideration when making its decision up to Dec. 10.” In the estimation of the CNSC, Ms. Keen testified, the Chalk River reactor posed an unacceptable risk, a risk 1,000 times greater than the international standard [8].
Critics decried the Conservative government’s actions as attacks to silence those who refuse to toe the party line and for firing Ms. Keen for doing her job – looking out for the safety of people working in and living near a nuclear reactor. Critics also expressed serious concerns concerning the Conservative government’s actions and its implications for the proper oversight of arms-length, independent bodies tasked with the ensuring the safety of Canadians [9].
References
[1] Ottawa thwarts nuclear watchdog; Nuclear Safety Commission warns of possibility of serious accident at ChalkRiver, but PM says there's no safety issue in restarting reactor, The Globe And Mail , December 12, 2007; Isotope shortage jeopardizes cancer treatments, Kingston Whig-Standard (On), December 6, 2007
[2] Reactor posed unacceptable risk, former watchdog says; Keen defends actions before House, claims Lunn stepped 'over the line', Times Colonist (Victoria), January 30, 2008
[3] Clement promises answers on shutdown; Health Minister visits Chalk River facility as questions remain about when cabinet first learned about problem, The Globe And Mail, December 20, 2007
[4] Firm knew of isotope crisis before Ottawa; MDS Nordion warned customers in a letter while government says it was in the dark, The Globe And Mail, December 21, 2007; Gov't aware of crisis at nuclear plant, MP says; Minister had provided funding to fix problem, Edmonton Journal, December 19, 2007
[5] Head of Nuclear Safety Commission fired, Dawson Creek Daily News, January 16, 2008
[6] Government 'scouring the globe' for isotopes, Montreal Gazette, December 11, 2007; Testimony clashes, tempers flare at committee studying nuclear shutdown, North Bay Nugget (On), February 13, 2008
[7] Harper takes new swipe at nuclear watchdog; PM defends decision to restart ChalkRiver reactor to provide medical isotopes, saying shutdown should never have happened, The Globe And Mail, January 11, 2008; Lunn defends late-night move to fire nuclear watchdog; Nuclear safety boss had been scheduled to testify before Commons committee, The Globe And Mail, January 17, 2008
[8] Keen says safety, not isotope production focus of commission's mandate, Canwest News Service, January 30, 2008; Reactor posed unacceptable risk, former watchdog says; Keen defends actions before House, claims Lunn stepped 'over the line', Times Colonist (Victoria), January 30, 2008; Keen defends decision to shut reactor in name of safety; Bureaucrat insists risk was 1,000 times greater than standard, The Ottawa Citizen, January 30, 2008; Reactor posed unacceptable risk, former watchdog says; Keen defends actions before House, claims Lunn stepped 'over the line', Times Colonist (Victoria), January 30, 2008
[9] Ousted regulator just doing her job: National Affairs, The Daily Courier (Kelowna), January 18, 2008; Mugging of bureaucrat will come back to bite Tories, Kingston Whig-Standard (On), January 22, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mulroney-Schreiber Scandal v3
Mulroney-Schreiber Scandal
The Mulroney-Schreiber scandal refers to the complex personal, political and business relationship between the Rt. Hon Brian Mulroney, 18th Prime Minister of Canada, and Karlheinz Schreiber, a German-born Canadian businessman.
Brian Mulroney, 18th Prime Minister of Canada (CPAC)
At the heart of this scandal are the cash payments made by Karlheinz Schreiber to Brian Mulroney in 1993, allegedly agreed to while Mulroney was still Prime Minister, with the first of the three cash payments occurring while Mulroney was still a Member of Parliament. Mr. Mulroney contends these payments were for work he did internationally, lobbying on behalf of Thyssen Armoured Vehicles, a German company represented by Schreiber. Mr. Schreiber maintains the payments were for work Mr. Mulroney was to do lobbying the Canadian government. There is a question as to whether lobbying the Canadian government of Members of Parliament on behalf of the Thyssen corporation would have constituted a violation of the conflict of interest or post employment code in force at the time as well as the Parliament of Canada Act [1].
The Harper government had long been aware that allegations existed concerning Mr. Mulroney and his relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber. Prime Minister Harper was present with Mr. Mulroney at the Greenest Prime Minister Awards when Mulroney was questioned by journalists specifically about the cash payments he received from Schreiber [2].
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Despite this, the Harper government continued its close association with Brian Mulroney, allowing him wide-ranging access to members of Cabinet, allowing him to be a successful advocate on many files, including telecommunications for his employer, Quebecor. Indeed, Prime Minister Harper claimed to regularly consult Mulroney as a political advisor, and Harper cabinet minister Marjory Lebreton was said to be in daily phone contact with Brian Mulroney [3].
On November 8th, 2007, Karlheinz Schreiber filed an affidavit in Federal Court in Toronto detailing his extensive relationship with Brian Mulroney over many years, including the meetings with Mulroney while he was Prime Minister, and the cash payments he made to Mr. Mulroney It was also revealed that Mr. Schreiber had made many of these same allegations in a March 2007 letter to Prime Minister Harper.
On November 9th, Stephen Harper called a press conference announcing that members of the government should cease their dealings with Brian Mulroney, and that he was engaging Dr. David Johnson to recommend whether a public inquiry into the allegations was warranted. Days later, after Mr. Mulroney himself said he welcomed an inquiry, Mr. Harper yielded to opposition demands and agreed to call a judicial inquiry. .
Peter Van Loan, Conservative House Leader (Source: pm.gc.ca)
Dr. Johnson reported on Monday, April 7th, recommending a limited inquiry into the affair. He even suggested the inquiry commissioner might want to make the hearings more "efficient" by holding parts of the probe in secret. Responding to the report, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan told reporters, "We will be acting on the recommendations that Professor Johnston has provided and a commissioner should be appointed very soon.".
The government then delayed appointing a commissioner for another 66 days likely to ensure that an inquiry could not be up an running until 2009, well after an expected fall election.
On June 12th, 2008 the government appointed Jeffrey Oliphant, associate chief justice of Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench to head the judicial inquiry [4].
The Oliphant inquiry is not scheduled to begin until February 2009. Richard Wolson, the Winnipeg lawyer serving as chief counsel to the probe, says he and his staff face a huge amount of work compiling and analyzing documentary evidence before they can put any witnesses on the stand [5].
References[1] Harper announces public inquiry into Mulroney Schreiber affair, The Canadian Press, Jan 11, 2008 [2] Video seen in “Brian Mulroney: The Unauthorized Chapter”, The Fifth Estate broadcast Oct 31., 2007[3] Mulroney casts long shadow in Harper circle, The Globe And Mail, November 10, 2007 [4] Judge appointed by Mulroney named to lead Schreiber inquiry, Edmonton Journal, June 13, 2008 [5] No hearings until next year in long awaited Mulroney Schreiber probe, The Canadian Press, Aug 12, 2008
The Mulroney-Schreiber scandal refers to the complex personal, political and business relationship between the Rt. Hon Brian Mulroney, 18th Prime Minister of Canada, and Karlheinz Schreiber, a German-born Canadian businessman.
Brian Mulroney, 18th Prime Minister of Canada (CPAC)
At the heart of this scandal are the cash payments made by Karlheinz Schreiber to Brian Mulroney in 1993, allegedly agreed to while Mulroney was still Prime Minister, with the first of the three cash payments occurring while Mulroney was still a Member of Parliament. Mr. Mulroney contends these payments were for work he did internationally, lobbying on behalf of Thyssen Armoured Vehicles, a German company represented by Schreiber. Mr. Schreiber maintains the payments were for work Mr. Mulroney was to do lobbying the Canadian government. There is a question as to whether lobbying the Canadian government of Members of Parliament on behalf of the Thyssen corporation would have constituted a violation of the conflict of interest or post employment code in force at the time as well as the Parliament of Canada Act [1].
The Harper government had long been aware that allegations existed concerning Mr. Mulroney and his relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber. Prime Minister Harper was present with Mr. Mulroney at the Greenest Prime Minister Awards when Mulroney was questioned by journalists specifically about the cash payments he received from Schreiber [2].
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Despite this, the Harper government continued its close association with Brian Mulroney, allowing him wide-ranging access to members of Cabinet, allowing him to be a successful advocate on many files, including telecommunications for his employer, Quebecor. Indeed, Prime Minister Harper claimed to regularly consult Mulroney as a political advisor, and Harper cabinet minister Marjory Lebreton was said to be in daily phone contact with Brian Mulroney [3].
On November 8th, 2007, Karlheinz Schreiber filed an affidavit in Federal Court in Toronto detailing his extensive relationship with Brian Mulroney over many years, including the meetings with Mulroney while he was Prime Minister, and the cash payments he made to Mr. Mulroney It was also revealed that Mr. Schreiber had made many of these same allegations in a March 2007 letter to Prime Minister Harper.
On November 9th, Stephen Harper called a press conference announcing that members of the government should cease their dealings with Brian Mulroney, and that he was engaging Dr. David Johnson to recommend whether a public inquiry into the allegations was warranted. Days later, after Mr. Mulroney himself said he welcomed an inquiry, Mr. Harper yielded to opposition demands and agreed to call a judicial inquiry. .
Peter Van Loan, Conservative House Leader (Source: pm.gc.ca)
Dr. Johnson reported on Monday, April 7th, recommending a limited inquiry into the affair. He even suggested the inquiry commissioner might want to make the hearings more "efficient" by holding parts of the probe in secret. Responding to the report, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan told reporters, "We will be acting on the recommendations that Professor Johnston has provided and a commissioner should be appointed very soon.".
The government then delayed appointing a commissioner for another 66 days likely to ensure that an inquiry could not be up an running until 2009, well after an expected fall election.
On June 12th, 2008 the government appointed Jeffrey Oliphant, associate chief justice of Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench to head the judicial inquiry [4].
The Oliphant inquiry is not scheduled to begin until February 2009. Richard Wolson, the Winnipeg lawyer serving as chief counsel to the probe, says he and his staff face a huge amount of work compiling and analyzing documentary evidence before they can put any witnesses on the stand [5].
References[1] Harper announces public inquiry into Mulroney Schreiber affair, The Canadian Press, Jan 11, 2008 [2] Video seen in “Brian Mulroney: The Unauthorized Chapter”, The Fifth Estate broadcast Oct 31., 2007[3] Mulroney casts long shadow in Harper circle, The Globe And Mail, November 10, 2007 [4] Judge appointed by Mulroney named to lead Schreiber inquiry, Edmonton Journal, June 13, 2008 [5] No hearings until next year in long awaited Mulroney Schreiber probe, The Canadian Press, Aug 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)