Image Sources: BBC, ENE, Scientific Reports (also: here, here, here and here).
See all my posts on Nuclear topics.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Nuclear Leaks 20: Fukushima's Butterflies
Image Sources: BBC, ENE, Scientific Reports (also: here, here, here and here).
See all my posts on Nuclear topics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
There are some comments about butterflies in a recent episode of CBC radio's IDEAS which relate to this if I remember correctly. Not in a position to double-check though. This could turn out to be/definitely is an ill-considered comment.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2012/06/13/buying-into-biodiversity/
For the blog's readers, the direct audio link which JS suggested is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbc.ca/ideas/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2245456909
Thanks for your comment JS. Is there an equation being implied here between biological diversity with horrible mutations due to a radioactive fallout? I hope not.
I listened to the excerpt. I'd agree that butterflies are good indicators of the impact of environmental changes and problems.
I don't think the overtly political tone taken in the IDEAS discussion is all that useful. The politicization of environmental issues skews our ability to understand environmental issues accurately and to deal with them effectively. Here, those concerned about climate change would support nuclear as 'green' energy and would downplay Fukushima? Certainly, I have seen that unfortunate left wing interpretation online.
In the case of Fukushima, both left and right support nuclear energy for different reasons. As a result, Fukushima is not being intensively discussed by left or right media outlets (although the MSM are covering it from time to time). But the sheer impact of Fukushima deserves daily coverage; instead, one of the worst (if not the worst) nuclear accidents in history has been largely ignored by the public. It is disgraceful.
Like I said: ill considered comment. Mind you, having re-listened to the Podcast in order to see what I had inadvertently said, I didn't hear anything about nuclear power. What I did hear, though it was buried in political-speak, was something more forcibly suggested in the summits communique. Here's a quote:
ReplyDelete"Biological and environmental science findings alone are not sufficient to lead to effective policy changes. The insights of aboriginal wisdom, along with the humanities, social sciences and the arts are also needed to encourage people to adopt, develop, and act on policies and goals."
http://muskokasummit.org/blog/2012/07/23/solutions/
This doesn't strike me as the sort of overt politicization that you may or may not be referring to in your response. Indeed, it seems to congrue with what I think I have seen written here on this blog.
Should environmental issues be left totally out of politics? How else would we manage these issues? Or are you concerned that rhetoric of environmentalism will serve as a vehicle for the overt politicization of the arts and humanities? Or is it something else that I'm not understanding (totally possible!)?
Because, admittedly, things like this: "We need youth (and non youth) that understand the importance of biodiversity to be encouraged/supported to enter into politics" ARE disconcerting. A critic could easily read this as saying: we need to remove people who think in a certain way and replace them with people who think in the right way. I'm not currently such a critic, but my opinion would change depending on the manner of implementation.
But then again alongside the above you have statements like: "The government is not always constructive. We can make change without them, and can deal with more than one challenge at a time, as the public. We do not have to rely on others."
So that seems to speak to your concerns as well. I'm not sure.
Anyway. Love the blog. Keep it up!
Thanks very much for your comment, JS. The only connection I drew between Fukushima and biodiversity came from the fact that you left the biodiversity reference at the bottom of a post about Fukushima mutations due to fallout. So you could see how it looked like you were making an association between the two, even if you weren't.
ReplyDeleteI feel that some of the public issues that have become hotly politicized such as climate change (another commenter, pblfsda, referred to the hot button issue of abortion in another post this week) become problematic because the pro-and-con dynamics of political debatesmake it nearly impossible for people to discuss these problems in a non-political sense. Also, politics brings in the world of lobbying, money, power, elections.
IMO politicization becomes a problem when it obscures reality; when it imposes an idea developed under completely different historical conditions onto a current situation that in no real way matches the idea's historical origins; when it divides resources; when it prevents (rather than enables) effective ways of dealing with disasters like Fukushima; when it divides people who would otherwise have cooperated to deal with a logistical problem.
Over the past 40 years, there has been a battle between right and left to 'capture' different social, economic and environmental problems. Must it be that conservatives do not believe in climate change? Do they really not care about the environment? Of course not. Can leftists abandon their 'nuclear is the green alternative to stop climate change' stance? Sure they can.
When time is pressing, as with Fukushima, it isn't necessary to politicize an issue in order to understand and deal with it. One *can* work with others and just deal with it. The bottom line: there are probably three China Syndromes transpiring with catastrophic levels of pollution to Japan, the Pacific and the Northern Hemisphere. And almost no one on right or left is talking about it. I can't square any so-called virtues politics might offer in exchange for this total breach of public trust.
-- And thanks very much for following! I'm glad you enjoy the blog.
ReplyDelete