Intuitive Lessons from The Pandemic – A Fantasy

This post is not based on comprehensive research or particular expertise on my part. Rather it is more what we would have called “common sense” before Mike Harris completely destroyed the meaning of the phrase.

We start off with the most obvious. We need a public health care system that is not overloaded to begin with. We can solve two problems here, provide pandemic readiness and provide timely life enhancing health care. We currently provide timely care for life threatening situations like cancer, heart surgery and emergency trauma but have created an artificial class of so called “elective surgery” we consider to be of lesser importance. This includes things like hip and knee surgery and replacements and many other types of health care that are necessary to allow people to live fulfilling lives. Health care is much more than preventing premature deaths. If we provided the necessary resources to provide all necessary health care without unreasonable wait times we would have the capacity to deal with a pandemic without putting peoples lives at risk.

Equally obvious is the need to bring long term care into the public health care system. Before the pandemic the horror stories of private long term care were well known even if the body counts were not as inexcusable as they became with the pandemic meeting the profit motive.

And still looking at the health care system, why did doctors offices shut down or become virtual during the pandemic when they should have been part of the response to it. Family physicians provide the first source of diagnosis for many serious illnesses like heart disease and cancer where early detection can be a matter of life and death. The system may respond quickly when these diseases are diagnosed but it does not respond at all when they are not detected. And why was the network of family physicians not used for pandemic testing and vaccinations.

And what of government policies. The big thing we got right was vaccines. In comparison to some jurisdictions to the south of us, all jurisdictions understand the importance and effectiveness of vaccines. The federal government did an admirable job of making vaccines available to the provinces and the provinces did a decent job in administering them. The main things Ontario could have done better was utilizing doctors offices and the school system to more efficiently get vaccines to the public.

As to the timely and appropriate response to the threat that is where we could have done better. We knew it was coming but we didn’t know what it would be like so it was a learning process. There is lots to criticize in hindsight but more importantly is learning going forward.

The biggest lesson was that internationally jurisdictions that put public health first and took strong, even drastic, measures quickly were able to get out of it faster than those that took half measures being more concerned with protecting the so-called economy than the public’s health. Having a provincial leader that considered himself a “businessman first” and by implication a Premier second did not help. We are still stumbling through in Ontario.

What is saving us is our sense of community. This works on two levels. On the personal level, it means in our personal behaviour, such as distancing, mask wearing and getting vaccinated, we base our decisions not just on what will keep us safe but also on what will keep our neighbours safe. This has made the big difference on how Canada has fared, compared to the United States, who arguably had better resources available to fight the pandemic.

The other level is the collective level, our collective actions taken together through our governments.

Here we are talking about three levels of government, federal, provincial and local, sometimes with differing philosophies and priorities. We really need to find a way to make federalism work better in these sorts of, not just national but international emergencies, climate change being another example.

If the pandemic has shown us anything is that individual action cannot replace collective action, and some things are just done better by acting collectively rather than acting individually. This is where we need to do better, particularly by strengthening our health care system and providing social supports. We are not financially prepared for the next pandemic because the political parties in power have chosen to go down the populist road of under-taxation thinking that would buy them votes. This is perhaps the most disastrous public policy position of the last half century.

Fortunately, because of that trend, there is substantial room to increase taxes to fill the void, particularly on that portion of the population that are excessively wealthy and under-taxed. This is a group in society that actually stands to gain more from collective spending by government than they can from individual spending by themselves. There is only so much you can spend on a wealthy lifestyle and the benefits of a better society far outweigh the benefits of people who have everything buying more everything for themselves.

We can be better prepared next time, and there will be a next time, but only if we choose to.

And the fantasy part – the belief that those in power will actually choose to learn these lessons and implement the necessary measures.

Ontario’s COVID-19 Disaster in Five Words

The Ontario government would like to blame the behaviour of Ontario’s citizens for this disaster implying somehow we are so much worse than the citizens of other countries, and even other provinces, that are at the end of this crisis as we enter the worst of it. The fact is other jurisdictions acted quicker and stronger and got through the worst quicker because they put the health of their citizens first.

Ontario has from the start tried to get by with half measures because the government’s priority was protecting business interests, the sacred economy. Now the government is flailing about trying to appear to be doing something while failing to implement many of the measures recommended by public health experts, and implementing others that will have little impact beyond punishing the citizens of the province for the government’s inaction and ineptitude.

Indeed the priority of Premier Doug Ford is not protecting the health of Ontario. His priority is not even governing the province of Ontario. His priority is reflected in the five words he uttered so proudly “I’m a businessman first”.

The Pensioner and the Pandemic

This is the post I was going to write before I was rudely interrupted and told to lock myself in my room.

I may indeed be the least affected person on the planet by this pandemic, and the only one that it seems to be not such a big deal, simply because it simply has not had a huge impact on my daily life.

Health-wise, although technically in a higher risk group by age, I am in the lowest risk group by perhaps the most important metric, economic status. I am not living in a long term care facility or living with a pre-existing condition that puts me at greater risk and I am relatively healthy with a strong immune system. As long as I follow the recommended precautions regarding mask wearing, physical distancing and avoiding crowded indoor gatherings I feel completely safe.

As a retired pensioner I do not have to worry about either being out of work and out of income or conversely having to work in an environment that may expose me to the virus. This is a huge issue for many people, especially those in lower income occupations, many of whom are in the highly praised but underpaid “front line” occupations we hear so much about now and who will no doubt go back to being ignored when this is all over.

Most importantly my daily lifestyle has been impacted very little. The biggest inconvenience has been having to wear a mask when grocery shopping. My daily routine of outdoor exercise, primarily cycling with some hiking, has had little impact other than having to be somewhat more aware of keeping as much distance as possible when passing people.

Yes, we have not been able to eat out at restaurants but we only did that once every two or three months anyway, and that is a luxury many live their wholes lives without being able to afford.

We have not been able to travel outside the country for the past year, but then most people are not in a position to undertake foreign travel on an annual basis, and we have not done any recreational travel within the province for the last year, again something that many do not have the economic means to do regularly.

We saw investments in equities fall significantly (but they have now recovered) but our concerns about economic effects should be saved for those living from paycheck to pay check rather than for those that can afford to invest in the stock market.

I really have no reason to feel hard done by due to the pandemic.

Lessons We Must Learn From COVID-19 to Build a Better Society

Community is the key to the future. Those societies that are fairing best in responding to COVID 19 are those with a strong sense of community. America's dismal response is not just because of Trump, but also due to the country's overemphasis on individualism over community.

Our public health care system, part of our collective sense of community, was key to our response. It made our ability to control the outbreak possible. But it is still flawed and could not respond was well as it should have because it is underfunded and incomplete. We saw that particularly in the for profit long term care sector, measured in body counts. We must complete the system by extending it to prescription drugs, vision and dental care and most importantly long term care of the elderly and home care. We must eliminate profit from the provision of health care so that patient care and profits are never competing for funds. Most importantly we must realize that health is the most important priority for everyone and under-funding health care in order to promise lower taxes is in nobody's best interest.

Our economic safety net was the next most important factor in our successful response. Unfortunately we did not have a proper system in place to respond and the government had to respond with a series of patchwork measures put together quickly which, while it managed to avoid the worst of our southern neighbours problems, it still left the most disadvantaged, well still disadvantaged. That series of measures, as necessary as they were, increased both the deficit and national debt because the government, that has been under-taxing the wealthy for decades, did not have the financial capability it should have.

What we needed and what we need is a basic guaranteed annual income, and not just one to keep people barely above the poverty line but one designed to provide a decent quality of life for everyone.

We say 'we are all in this together" but we clearly are not equally in this together and never will be as long as we live in a society of massive economic inequality.

We talk about groups such as seniors being more at risk but in reality the biggest risk factor with COVID 19 is economic status. Those placed at highest risk, our so-called front-line heroes, those responsible for producing and providing our food and goods, are working in cramped and unsafe conditions, along with those working in high risk long term care facilities, are the biggest group of COVID 19 victims. And these are the people most susceptible to the economic consequence of COVID 19, often living from paycheck to paycheck. A few extra dollars per hour for a few weeks is not the solution.

We must deal with the economic inequality in our society by raising incomes at the bottom and reducing them at the extreme top end. CEOs of corporations who make their profits and fortunes from minimum wage earners simply do not earn the millions of dollars per year they are paid. They are paid that because of an unequal economic and political system. We must reform our tax system so that those that can afford to pay more do and those at the bottom pay less at the same time as we reduce the gap between the bottom and the top.

We need to raise minimum wages to a level that provides a decent quality of live and use the tax system to redistribute the wealth of the excessively overpaid. We cannot build the type of community and society we need on a basis of extreme inequality.

We also cannot build the society we need without concern for the environment it lives within and without addressing the challenge of climate change.

We need to build a new society, based on community rather than individualism, if we want to meet the challenges of the future and this includes a move from more individual spending to more collective spending. Fundamental change is required if we are to survive the challenges of the future and thrive within it.

Also of Interest:

THE FIFTH COLUMN: Towards a Green Social Democratic Economy

THE FIFTH COLUMN: On Inequality, Democracy and Taxing the Rich – A Modest Proposal

THE FIFTH COLUMN: On Democracy

Thoughts on the police

This post does not claim to have all the answers, or any answers, nor to be a comprehensive, or any kind of analysis, but is simply some thoughts on a subject that our society has finally been forced to deal with.

One's attitude to the police is clearly shaped by the reality one lives in. Unfortunately for too many people that reality is that the police are people who at worst kill them or their family members and at best treat them unfairly and discriminate against them. To others the police are people they depend on to protect them and in some cases to protect their privileged status in society.

Some will say this is an issue that we have imported from a racist United States. We know that to be untrue. Even those that say that know it to be untrue and the best they can argue is that it is relatively worse in the United States. Not being as bad as America is hardly a standard we should want to be judged by in Canada, particularly when strong arguments can be made that this is not true anyway, we just all wish it was.

Many will argue that abolishing or defunding the police are simply ideas that are too radical.

Indeed for untold decades suggestions for community building and crime prevention as an alternative to policing and incarceration have been met with support in principle without funding being provided, while police budgets have increased exponentially with little restraint. Indeed there seemed to have be an unspoken argument that we will find money for crime prevention when we no longer need it for the police because crime has disappeared.

We could of course reduce the need for the police by orders of magnitude if we stopped criminalizing what is a public health issue – drug use and abuse. We have done that for years with alcohol and tobacco use and cannabis just recently. There is no rational reason why all non-medical use of drugs should not been treated in the same way as a public health issue.

The funds are available to provide proper drug rehabilitation programs, sitting there in police budgets being wasted on treating a health matter as a criminal one. We could also use that money to provide mental health workers to deal with mental health crisis so the individuals receive treatment rather than being killed by police.

I dare say we have a huge amount of room to defund the police and put that money to better use.

We could put traffic enforcement in a separate organization with a greater emphasis on road safety rather than collecting fines,

What we have left within the police for traditional policing, crime investigation and law enforcement would still require major reforms. Reforms of the extent that could justifiably be argued would be best done by abolishing the police as they now exist and starting all over.

The Pensioner and the Pandemic and ...

The Government Wants to Lock Me in My Room

Well this blog post is taking somewhat of a change of direction from that planned, which was to focus on the benefits of being a retired pensioner at this time, since the Ontario government is telling me that I will suddenly be at risk for COVOD-19 on my birthday in a few days and should (or must, depending on the source) self-isolate for 14 days after which I will be fine again (or maybe not, depending on the source).

This puts me in a strange position as someone who has been critical of those who do not listen to the experts and health authorities on the verge of engaging in civil disobedience by ignoring them. I am put in a position where they want me to change my healthy lifestyle and lock myself in a room for two weeks (or longer) presumably because of a statistical relationship between age and a presumed greater degree of risk COVID-19.

From the Ontario government website.

Self-isolating means staying at home and avoiding contact with other people to help prevent the spread of disease to others in your home and your community.

All persons over 70 years of age and individuals who are immunocompromised are advised to self-isolate for a period of 14 days. This means that you should only leave your home or see other people for essential reasons. Where possible, you should seek services over the phone or internet or ask for help from friends, family or neighbours with essential errands. (The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) | Ontario.ca)

From the results page for the COVID-19 self-assessment with all questions answered in the negative except for age over 70. (Coronavirus (COVID-19) self-assessment)

Self-assessment result

You must self-isolate at home and monitor your health because you are part of an at-risk group.

You are in an at-risk group because you said one of the following applies to you:

• are over 70 years of age

You must self-isolate, which means:

• only leave your home or see other people for critical reasons (like a medical emergency)
• seek services over the phone or online or ask for help from friends, family or neighbours
• do not go into a hospital or clinic to get a COVID-19 test unless you are asked to by a health care provider

The first thing one notices if one reads carefully is that the first references uses “advised” and “for a period of 14 days” and the second reference uses “must” and has no reference to a time period.

And the latest, as reported by CTV News refers to “strongly recommending”.

TORONTO -- Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health (Dr. David Williams ) is now recommending that all people over the age of 70 self-isolate given the elevated risk of "severe outcomes" should they contract COVID-19.

"Given the greater risk of severe outcomes to Ontarians who are elderly, I am also strongly recommending that individuals over 70 years of age self-isolate," Williams wrote. "This means only leaving home or seeing other people for essential reasons. Where possible, you should seek services over the phone or internet or ask for help from friends, family or neighbours with essential errands."

Meanwhile people over 70 comprise only 14% of COVID-19 cases in Canada as reported in this Ottawa Citizen article: "New data: Middle-aged Canadians most likely to catch COVID-19, so far". The percentage of Canadians over 65 was 14% in 2010 and growing (Statistics Canada) making it clear that the percentage of COVID-19 cases among those over 70 today is clearly below that of the general population. We are at less risk statistically not more risk.

But that really is not the point. There clearly is a subset of older Canadians with health concerns that require them to be more cautious and take more precautions, as there are within all age groups, in particular those that are immunocompromised and those that smoke or vape, due to the respiratory nature of the disease.

A blanket policy based on age discrimination does not seem to be the way to deal with health concerns that are specific to individuals and is not going to sit well with my comrades in this generation.

Fortunately there has been no indication that the province will use legal instruments to enforce this which is probably a good thing because we are a generation that grew up with civil disobedience.

COVID-19 and Poverty/Inequality

At the same time another important factor of this pandemic is one that has almost entirely been ignored by the establishment press, or mainstream media as it is sometimes called, and that is economic status.

When it comes to underlying health factors that make individuals more susceptible to the virus and less able to combat it economic status is a big determinant. It determines the quality of nutrition, as well as housing conditions (overcrowding, etc.) and other lifestyle factors, as well as the quality of health care one has access to. This is not just on an individual basis but also on a societal one with poorer countries in a much more difficult position to fight off the pandemic. Yet we see very little written about that in the media.

As we see with the rapid response to COVID-19, compared with the feeble response to climate change, governments are much better at reacting to acute crisis than to chronic problems. We see this as governments quickly jump in to deal with symptoms of climate change like flooding or hurricanes while their response to the real problem is feeble.

COVID-19 has brought with it not just a health crisis but an economic one, one that has affected the group governments claim to care most about, the middle class. Governments are scrambling to deal with the loss of jobs and income while also trying to deal with a major health crisis.

But what if they had taken inequality seriously. What if we had a guaranteed basic income (such as that proposed by Conservative Hugh Segal) in place. The government would not have had to scramble and stumble into implementing make shift programs. The solution for those displaced from employment and income would already have been in place

Postscript: The Great Outdoors is Closed

And apparently now the outdoors is closed in Ontario.

In a news release on Monday night, Ford announced a new emergency order under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. The order closes all outdoor recreational amenities, such as sports fields and playgrounds, effective immediately.

He said the extension of the declared emergency and the new emergency order are based on the advice of Dr. David Williams, Ontario's chief medical officer of health.

According to the news release, the new order closes all communal or shared, public or private, outdoor recreational amenities in Ontario. These include playgrounds, sports fields, basketball and tennis courts, off-leash dog parks, beaches, skateboard and BMX parks, picnic areas, outdoor community gardens, park shelters, outdoor exercise equipment, condo parks and gardens, and other outdoor recreational amenities.

Green spaces in parks, trails, ravines and conservation areas that aren't closed are to remain open for people to walk through, but people must maintain a distance of at least two metres apart. Ontario's provincial parks and conservation reserves remain closed. (Ontario extends state of emergency by 2 weeks as number of COVID-19 cases now 1,706 | CBC News)

Healthy lifestyles are what will create a population most resilient to health challenges such as COVID-19. Being out in nature and exercising contribute greatly to this. At a time when we are encouraging, indeed requiring, physical distancing (previously referred to as social distancing) it seems counterproductive to close those areas that provide the space for people to practice physical distancing without locking themselves up in their homes in fear.

Final Words

None of this is to say that we should not take this seriously and listen to the health experts when they tell us to practice physical distancing to reduce the spread of the disease.

Background

Coronavirus - Wikipedia

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) - Wikipedia

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Wikipedia

Why Does Canada Participate in the Olympics Anyway

I took this screenshot (CBC website) of the standings yesterday showing Germany in first place with 8 medals, Canada second with 10 medals and Norway in third place with 12 medals.

Yes, that's right, because only being the very best in the world (well best at that particular place at that particular time) counts, the rest are all losers, so it seems.

Why do we rate the Olympics that way. The way we rate Olympic success should relate to what we want to accomplish, and the way we rate Olympics can have far reaching effects on how we fund sports and recreation in this country. We have already seen, at least in the past, funding shifted from less popular sports to sports that we have a better chance of winning Olympic medals in.

But what if we measured Olympic success by a points system that included all top ten finishes (tenth best in the world is pretty damn good by most peoples standards) with 10 points for first and one point for tenth.

We would get a much better picture of the depth and breadth of our elite athletes than just counting those in the top three. It would even give us a better measure of how we are progressing towards more medals in the future. And we could start doing it now retroactively using the records of past Olympics.

But is that even the point. Is it really justified to spend all this money on a “pissing contest” to prove we (well actually our elite athletes) are better than the rest of the world. What public policy goal does that serve.

We can only justify spending all this money on the Olympics if it serves some public benefit beyond giving Canadian another excuse to spend more time watching TV (while waving the flag) for two weeks every two years.

We can only justify spending this money if it benefits Canadians beyond the elite athletes that participate. We have to be able to show that the funding benefits a broad range of Canadians by funding sports and recreation for more than just elite athletes and by actually encouraging more Canadians to get involved in sports and recreation. That way we will see results in fitter and healthier Canadians with more balanced lifestyles and even reduced health care costs.

We won't know that if we measure the wrong things. Ultimately what we want to be able to measure is whether Olympic programs increase the participation of Canadians in sport and recreation ultimately leading to more balanced lifestyles and improving their fitness and health.

Knowing that we had the greatest percentage of citizens participating in sports and recreational activities would make me a lot more prouder than knowing that a small group of elite Canadian athletes were the best in the world. Now that is a goal to strive for.

Martha Webber on the Destruction of the Beaver Pond Forest

Martha Webber, renowned Kanata/Ottawa botanist, naturalist and educator, wrote the following in response to the news of the final complete clear-cutting of the Beaver Pond Forest in the South March Highlands. It is posted here with her permission.

Is there no way to end the destruction? This old growth forest is not only a refuge for wildlife, First Nation artifacts, but unique in its location within an urban boundary. Ottawa's version of Algonquin park, with trails accessible by foot, bike or public transit in use year round by residents and guests to the city. The "lungs of the world", so called because of air purification, reflected in the health of our citizens. Even on the hottest days of summer, those who walk its trails benefit from clean, fragrant air and escape from constant city noise. Autistic children respond well to this, all of us benefit. Such a walk in Japan is called "forest bathing" for stress reduction and health support. There is still sufficient forest standing to become a city park which would soon recover the cost as an ecotourism attraction.

There are already more new families in proliferating developments than there are schools and other supports available. No consideration is given to endangered plants and animals, even to flora and fauna in general. They have no rights when measured against development money and influence. So much money is available today for major city projects, if some could be postponed ? A forest must be a certain size and quality to support a viable wildlife food chain, and ours is being decimated.

There is so much money being spent in this city today, some of these targets could be postponed for a while. A layer of smog already overlies the city on hot days, without the ancient forest we will require some sort of filter to breathe, as in other major cities like Mexico City, or Toronto, and children and seniors will be especially at risk.

Mind Your Own Business

If you work for Siemens Building Technologies and you see people breaking the law, and they are doing it right beside a sign advising them that they are breaking the law, it is best to keep your mouth shut. Otherwise, one of the lawbreakers might report you and you could be fired, especially if the law being broken is a health regulation and the lawbreaker works for Health Canada.

This Could Be You

Health Minister Says Retailers Should Not Care About Customers Health

According to a report in the Ottawa Citizen Health Minister Tony Clement thinks retailers should not be concerned about the health and safety of their customers and should decide what to sell only on the basis of what people will buy.

Health Minister Tony Clement said yesterday there's no need for retailers to assume the role of regulator when it comes to deciding which products are safe for sale in Canada -- just as two more giant retailers pulled all plastic products with bisphenol A from their shelves.
...

"Retailers make their own decisions, based upon what they think will sell and won't sell, so I'm not going to tell them how to run their businesses. I'm concerned about the health and safety of Canadians, and when we have something to announce, we'll announce it," said Mr. Clement.

He added Health Canada decides whether a product is safe for use or if it should be banned.

These companies are "saying to others that the market for these (BPA) products is drying up pretty quickly. So listen, if it's a market-based decision, that's for them to make. If it's health and safety, of course, Health Canada has to protect the health and safety of Canadians," Mr. Clement said.

The Minister seems to believe that the only responsibility retailers have is to maximize their profits and that only Big Brother Health Canada has a responsibility for the health of Canadians.

We would be a sad and unhealthy society if we all thought that way. But, of course, we don’t. Would the minister have parents buy dangerous and unhealthy toys for their children just because they are allowed to be sold. I suppose he would, because he believes retailers should sell goods they consider dangerous, unless and until Health Canada decides they should not.

Fortunately there are retailers who believe maximizing profit is not the only thing and choose their products considering such things as the health and safety of their customers. In the case of polycarbonate bottles containing bisphenol A Mountain Equipment Co-Op (MEC) was the first Canadian retailer to stop selling the product out of concern for the health of it’s members and customers. MEC, of course, has a reputation for putting the needs and the well-being of its members and customers first.

This is a good thing Mr. Clement. Remember you are the Minister of Health, not the Minister of Unbridled Capitalism.

Too Dangerous for Crops - Let’s Rub It On Our Children’s Brains

The CBC and CTV report that shampoos, marketed to treat head lice, that contain an insecticide, Lindane, that has been banned from agricultural use, are being sold over the counter in Canada.

According to the Lindane Education And Research Network:

Lindane is the primary synonym for gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) also commonly referred to as benzene hexachloride (BHC). Lindane is a nerve poison, an organochlorine pesticide. Lindane is a known carcinogen in the state of California where it has been banned. Lindane is an Endocrine Disrupting Chemical and Persistent Organic Pollutant. Lindane is found in air, water and soil samples throughout the world. Lindane is documented in human breast milk and amniotic fluid. Many countries have banned lindane. Unfortunately, in the United States, it is still widely prescribed and used on children and their families for treating head lice and scabies. It is also used on pets, livestock, fruits and vegetables, cotton, wool, tobacco, plants, trees and as a wood preservative.

The CBC report states:

While several environmental groups have called for a ban on lindane-based pharmaceuticals, Health Canada still allows its use in lice and scabies treatments, even though its use as an agricultural pesticide has been banned.

The Canadian Paediatric Society is reviewing its position on lindane products and currently recommends that they not be used on infants and children under 17. The society advises that products that contain pyrethrin or permethrin, instead of lindane, are considered safe.

Pesticide linked to convulsions, deaths

California banned lindane products in 2002 amid concerns the chemical was showing up in wastewater and because lindane-based medications were generating reports of skin irritation, dizziness, headaches and, in some extreme cases, convulsions and death.

California estimated that a single treatment of a lindane-based product that was washed down the drain was impacting 22 million litres of water and bringing contamination above the limit of 19 parts per trillion.

Parents should also note that head lice “aren't dangerous and they don't spread disease” (kidshealth.org) and “head lice are not a hazard to health” (simcoemuskokahealth.org) and finally “Head lice rarely (if ever) cause direct harm, and they are not known to transmit infectious agents from person-to-person. Thus, they should not be considered as a medical or a public health problem” (hsph.harvard.edu).

So why have parents been frightened into using a dangerous toxic chemical and carcinogen on their children’s brains to treat something that is not harmful. Our schools must stop promoting this lunacy and tell parents the truth about head lice and Lindane-based shampoos. And parents must not allow themselves to be bullied (by their children’s schools) into placing their children’s health at serious risk.

A tax cut I can support

Congratulations to the Ontario government for taking a small step that makes an important statement about the importance of health, fitness and the environment. The provincial government has announced the removal of the Provincial Sales Tax on bicycle helmets and bicycles under $1,000.

Bus Business Butt Ban

Well actually it's a "OC Transpo transit property smoking ban" but "Bus Business Butt Ban" alliterates better.

It's a little late for me now that I am retired, but I remember waiting at the bus stop and how annoying it was trying to avoid smokers. If I can smell the stuff I'm breathing it and and suffering the health consequences.

Indeed, The Canadian Cancer Society reports:

January 2006 - A new study by Canadian Cancer Society researcher Dr Roberta Ferrence may make it more difficult to smoke in outdoor public places.

The Toronto-based researcher is studying the behavior of smokers and non-smokers in outdoor public places in order to encourage new legislation and new designs that will limit outdoor smoking.

“The fact is that there are substantial health hazards from second-hand tobacco smoke exposure outdoors as well as indoors,” says Dr Ferrence, who is also the director of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit. “This means that we must start thinking about how to protect people from second-hand smoke when they’re in outdoor public places.”

Credit goes to OC Transpo for increasing its protection of transit users from second hand smoke.

Quitting Smoking Can Kill You and Global Warming is a Myth

Yes it is true - “giving up smoking can kill you”, and not only that, not smoking causes “neurotic depression, violent irritability, and obscene weight gain”, not to mention the fact that increased tobacco consumption is responsible for longer life expectancies.

Who would claim that - David Warren, writing in the Ottawa Citizen citing an article in Medical Hypotheses a non-peer reviewed journal in which authors pay to be published.

He also states:

“There is one more hypothesis with which I would like to leave my reader. It is that the kind of quack "science" that was used to ban smoking has now mutated into the kind that is used to flog global warming. It should have been resisted then; it should certainly be resisted now.”

It appears that Mr. Warren thinks that if he can convince us that smoking is good for us we will also believe that global warming is a myth.

And, just for the record, the Canadian Cancer Society states:

Health benefits of quitting

All kinds of smokers – men and women, young or old – can get health benefits from quitting. The minute you stop smoking, your body begins to clean itself of tobacco poisons. Here’s how:

* Within 8 hours, carbon monoxide levels drop in your body and oxygen levels in your blood increases.
* After 2 days, your sense of smell and taste begin to improve.
* Within 2 weeks to 3 months, your lungs work better making it easier to breathe.
* After 6 months, coughing, sinus congestion, tiredness and shortness of breath improve.
* After 1 year, your risk of a smoking-related heart attack is reduced by half.

The younger you are when you quit the greater the health benefits.

Quit and reduce the risk of cancer

Quit now and reduce the risk of developing cancer. In general, the longer you don't smoke the more you lower your risk.

* Within 10 years of quitting, the overall risk of an ex-smoker dying from lung cancer is cut in half.
* After 10 years, the overall risk of an ex-smoker developing cancer approaches that of a non-smoker.

Are Gyms and Fitness Clubs a Sign of an Unhealthy Lifestyle

Is going to the gym the epitome of a healthy lifestyle or is it just another example of a compartmentalized life. For how many people, is going to the gym the one hour a week or day set aside for fitness, where they get in the SUV drive to the gym and put in their allotted fitness time and get back to their compartmentalized lives.

Lifestyle is not about allotting time. It is about doing what comes naturally. In primitive time a healthy active lifestyle was not only natural but necessary for survival. We had to hunt to eat. Even after the agricultural and industrial revolutions most people where active in their jobs with farm or industrial labour being dominant.

The word activity implies being active but for the majority in today’s information society work and other activities now rarely involve actually being active so we slot the gym or fitness club into our schedule as our healthy lifestyle time.

A true healthy lifestyle does not involve setting aside time for “healthy things” because you have too. A true healthy lifestyle involves doing things you love because you enjoy them. The health and fitness benefits are a side effect. A true healthy lifestyle is not compartmentalized but naturally built into all your daily activities