Then there's this: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/23-11
Published on Monday, May 23, 2011 by CommonDreams.org Fukushima Daiichi and Nuclear Weapons by David Krieger The accident that experts and utility executives claimed could not happen, did happen at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan. The accident followed a major earthquake that registered 9.0 on the Richter scale, which in turn triggered a massive tsunami. Thousands of people died from these forces of nature, thousands more are still missing, and hundreds of thousands have been evacuated from their homes due to radiation releases from the damaged nuclear power reactors and spent fuel pools. It is too early to know the full extent of the radiation releases, how long people will need to remain outside the recently-extended 19-mile evacuation zone, or even to what extent Tokyo, 150 miles from the damaged plant, will suffer serious effects from the radiation releases. If you think that the release of radiation at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan is bad, you're right; but it would pale in comparison to the effects of the use of nuclear weapons. What do we know about the effects of nuclear weapons? The starting point for our knowledge comes from the use of these weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. At Hiroshima, one 12.5 kiloton atomic bomb destroyed the city, killing some 90,000 people immediately and 145,000 in total by the end of 1945. At Nagasaki, a slightly larger atomic weapon killed some 40,000 people immediately and 70,000 by the end of 1945. There are three important lessons from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. First, in each case it only took one bomb to destroy a city and kill and injure a large proportion of its inhabitants. Second, these bombs kill indiscriminately -- men, women and children. Third, the bombs that destroyed these cities were relatively small by today's standards. The average nuclear weapon deployed today is six to eight times more powerful than those early bombs, and some are thousands of times more powerful. At the height of the nuclear arms race between the US and former Soviet Union, there were 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Today, 20 years after the end of the Cold War, there remain over 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world. These weapons are in the arsenals of nine countries: the US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Ninety-five percent of the weapons are in the arsenals of the US and Russia. With the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, most people stopped worrying about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Such complacency, in the face of such a significant threat, is an abdication of responsibility. The use of even one nuclear weapon by terrorists could destroy a city anywhere on the globe. Every city in the world is vulnerable to being destroyed by a nuclear weapon. Just as the people in areas surrounding Fukushima must worry about radiation releases, people in cities throughout the globe should be concerned about their vulnerability to destruction by nuclear arms. Nuclear weapons kill by blast, fire and radiation. Their effects cannot be contained in time or space. A computer simulation of the use of 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons on cities in South Asia found that such a nuclear exchange would put enough debris into the stratosphere to block sunlight from reaching the earth, lowering temperatures to ice age levels. This, in turn, would lead to crop failures and starvation that could claim a billion lives. An all-out nuclear war could end civilization and most life on the planet. The tragedy at Fukushima Daiichi is a reminder that we humans are not capable of engineering for perfection, even with redundant safeguards. Where people are involved, there is always the possibility of human error. To think otherwise is to tempt fate. This is what we have done with nuclear weapons for more than 65 years. During this time, there have been several close calls, most famously the Cuban Missile Crisis. The surest way to end the nuclear weapons threat is to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. Such Conventions already exist for chemical and biological weapons. A Nuclear Weapons Convention is required by international law, but the political leadership to move the treaty forward has been lacking. This means that the people must lead their leaders. It means that all of us need to become engaged in rolling back the threat posed by nuclear weapons. The disaster at Fukushima Daiichi, coming 25 years after the accident at Chernobyl, is our wake-up call not only to the serious and immediate dangers of nuclear power but to the civilization-threatening dangers of nuclear weapons. David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), an organization that has worked since 1982 to educate and advocate for a world free of nuclear weapons. >Hi again Dawie > >This is a reply to your previous post, but I didn't get to send it >at the time. > >I have to say again that it's not humans or human intelligence that >are driving the species and the biosphere to the brink of >destruction, it's predatory corporations that are doing that. > >- K > >> >It is interesting that it was >>>the only bit that drew comment. > >I've put your whole post back, below. > >Quickly: > >>We don't really care if a squid respects our inner subtlety when we meet one. > >Why not? Squid are smart. No need for appreciation of inner >subtleties, but a friendly nod doesn't hurt. > >I have the idea (I've had it all my life, I think) that it helps to >pass along a little peace and goodwill, if you have it to spare. > >Jeremiah was a bullfrog >he was a good friiend of mine >I never understood a single word he said >but I helped him to drink his wine >he always had some mighty fine wine > >Joy to the world >to all the boys and girls >joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea >joy to you and me > >(Three Dog Night) > >(Sorry.) > >Anyway, one comment that came to mind was that such a view of species >and individuals would probably be anathema to the Japanese. It would >smack too much of individualism, which is out of line in Japan, very >rude, and indeed arrogant. Species, humanity, society, are concepts >that overlap somewhat, especially in translation, and in Japan the >society comes first - us, not me. > >Other post-Confucian societies might also have a problem with it, >though maybe not the same problem. > >> It may even be that it is impossible to understand our individual >>selves without reference to the common concept of humanness > >If you reworked that a little it might be something like what the >Japanese think. > >>... there is no such thing as Life, but only lives. > >There's both, I think, chicken and egg. It depends how you see it. >Biologically, we're more like massive cities than individual >citizens, composed of billions upon billions of individual cells, >many of them free-living. It's just another society. (Have you read >Eugene Marias' "Soul of the White Ant"? Which is the critter, the ant >or the anthill? ><http://journeytoforever.org/Marais1/whiteantToC.html>) > >I think we don't really disagree very much, maybe it's just that >where you say either-or I tend to see it as both-and. But you said >you weren't coming at it from a biological perspective, and I'm >seeing it ecologically, which is inclusive, everything's connected to >everything else. Well, by that measure, our two views should be >compatible. And I've enjoyed reading your posts! > >>Without creative liberty we might as well not exist at all: and if >>survival means the abolition of creative liberty I should gladly go >>down in flames. But I do not believe that that is the case. > >Neither do I. > >>A solution is possible, which not only allows creative liberty but >>is built on creative liberty. In fact it isn't all that fantastic at >>all. But it involves different acts to much of what is happening now. > >Can you be more explicit? And do you have any suggestions for more >effective acts? > >All best > >Keith > > >>Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment Dawie Coetzee > >Wed, 18 May 2011 21:13:57 -0700 >> >>I'm coming into this debate late because I'm not sure if I have more >>than disconnected philosophical snippets to contribute; that is, >>questions rather than answers. >> >>It seems to me that this is really the old universals question of >>the Middle Ages, to which a satisfactory resolution has never quite >>been developed. My own stance here is the sort of conceptualism or >>"soft" nominalism one would associate with Abelard or, indeed, >>Ockham himself. The great irony is that the typical modern observer >>with some engagement with the issue of the environment is likely to >>applaud Ockham's supposed progressiveness while unconsciously >>harbouring distinctly hyperrealist views of such things as the human >>species, i.e. the exact opposite of Ockham's position. >> >>Let me begin therefore by casting a nominalist stone in the bush, >>and denying that the human species is substantively real in itself. >>I think the pervasive and unconscious idea that the species is >>philosophically prior to the specimen is causing untold damage to >>our understanding of our place in the scheme of things. I am not >>denying the existence of the human species: it exists; but the mode >>in which it exists is that of a concept. It arises from myriad >>strands of similarity between discrete human beings and likewise >>shared points of difference to other sorts of beings, and as such it >>is an extremely useful concept. It may even be that it is impossible >>to understand our individual selves without reference to the common >>concept of humanness - at least in this life. But it becomes a >>problem as soon as we cease to recognize the concept of the species >>as a concept. >> >>Of course this casts a different light on the idea of the survival >>of the species. This is an idea distinct from the idea of the >>survival of a perpetual next generation, which is in turn different >>from the consideration of the quality of life of individuals of that >>next generation ("next generation" being itself a concept rather >>than a substantive reality). That is, do we proceed from the >>observation that life is inconceivable without the social presence >>of younger and indeed much younger individuals, or do we proceed >>from the supposed inner force which compels the species to seek its >>survival? To me the former seems infinitely better rooted in reality. >> >>So, if the species itself has a conceptual sort of existence, its >>survival drive is at best a secondary concept. That leads me >>seriously to doubt if intelligence has anything to do with the >>survival of the species. The suggestion seems fantastic. >> >>If we likewise conceive intelligence as a concept by which to >>understand what we observe, a workable view results. Intelligence is >>as much the ability to be understood as the ability to understand. >>Our relationship to those non-human beings with which we have a >>long-standing symbiosis rests on may factors, not least of which is >>that our canine and feline companions have the knack of looking at >>the bit where our eyes are when trying to communicate with us. They >>literally face us, as we face one another when speaking to one >>another; and that makes them intelligible to us. Birds, even very >>bright ones, don't do that, because their use of vision is >>different. Hence our relationship to them is slightly different - >>however that does not preclude meaningful engagement with various >>sorts of birds. The point is, intelligence has as much to do with my >>understanding of an intelligent being as with the inner condition of >>that being; and that makes it more and not less important to keep in >>mind the limits of my understanding of that being. It is just as >>respect between human persons rests to a very great extent on always >>remembering that the other has an inner being of almost infinite >>complexity, the precise nuance of which can never really be grasped. >> >>Conversely disrespect between humans is most often a case of summing >>the other up too simply: you are this or that and that is all there >>is to you. And so too between humans and others. But importantly we > >do not invert this. We don't really care if a squid respects our >>inner subtlety when we meet one. >> >>I for one accept that it is not able to do so and that it is >>perfectly good that this should be so. But then like Robert I take >>the view that we humans are not only specifically charged with >>stewardship but also uniquely damaged. We are none of us as we >>should be: the other creatures are, all of them, no matter what any >>human has done to them, in their basic being exactly as they should >>be. >> >>But that we all share the task of stewardship and all share the Fall >>of Man does not mean that the species is philosophically - or >>spiritually - prior to the specimen. (Ockham has indeed something to >>say about this, perhaps best accessible in Fr. Frederick >>Coppleston's commentaries. CS Lewis comes to much the same idea from >>the other end: that we are in our spiritual essence not bound by >>type but individually unique.) >> >>Again, the idea of a creature doing something that works because it >>was created with Divine wisdom is different to the idea of an >>intelligent being. I am not preferring one to the other; I am >>insisting on the distinction in the interest of retaining useful >>concepts to think with. As it happens I think the former is probably >>far more important in the scheme of things: but my job involves >>being intelligent. And I don't think it has much to do with the >>survival of the species, at least not directly. >> >>I came to the environmental movement not from cosmic-biological but >>from socio-political considerations. That is to say, not from shock >>and horror at what has been done to the planet, but from noticing >>that what is supposedly being done about it is often used as >>leverage to consolidate the very power that caused the damage in the >>first place, and that a tyranny is being built as a result. And the >>problem of tyranny is a deeper problem than the problem of >>extinction. >> >>Liberty is a spiritual category and therefore prior to the physical, >>never mind the social. Liberty is not something we grow to prefer as >>soon as we have a society: it is at least cognate with >>interpersonality and, I should say, even more basic. Liberty is not >>a response to authority (except to that Authority who demands of us >>that we exercise liberty); and it is always creative liberty. >>(Dorothy Sayers wrote a wonderful essay in which she points out >>that, when the book of Genesis confronts us with the idea that we >>are created in the image of God, we have at that point been told >>nothing about God except that He has created.) >> >>It is not enough that the "species survive". Indeed that seems to me >>a ludicrous project. It is more important that subsequent human >>lives happen: there is no such thing as Life, but only lives. And >>that is to say nothing of non-human lives; not that that is the >>point right now. But note how "Life" and "lives" are different sorts >>of ideas. It is of only secondary importance that a life involve >>"Life", a sort of prolegomena to the main thing even if it is the >>source of all morality around killing. It is more important that >>lives are able to unfold in terms of their purpose, which is to >>exercise creative liberty, therein to endow importance which >>manifests in acts of love, which are always and necessarily acts of >>liberty. >> >>Anything else, no matter how necessary we are told it is for the >>survival of the species, is tantamount to inducing coma at birth. We >>all sense that that is no solution, just like killing the poor is >>not what we mean when we talk of a solution to the problem of >>poverty. Without creative liberty we might as well not exist at all: >>and if survival means the abolition of creative liberty I should >>gladly go down in flames. But I do not believe that that is the case. >> >>A solution is possible, which not only allows creative liberty but >>is built on creative liberty. In fact it isn't all that fantastic at >>all. But it involves different acts to much of what is happening now. >> >>Regards >> >>Dawie Coetzee > > > >>Hello Dawie >> >>>Indeed, I haven't kept chickens! I bow to your better experience. > >> >>>My comment was, however, by way of illustration rather than >>>evidence. As such it >>>was really the least important part of my post. >> >>But the illustration was not correct. We are all one. No creature is >>better or worse than another. That's not unimportant, it's crucial. >>The biosphere itself is now under threat. To what extent is that due >>to our failure to heed this basic law of life on earth? >> >> >It is interesting that it was >>>the only bit that drew comment. >> >>I'm sorry if it seems I sidetracked the discussion, but even though >>there's not yet been any further comment, I'm sure it's inspired >>thought and reflection. >> >>Here's your original message, in full: >>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg75964.html >> >>All best >> >>Keith >> >> >>>Regards >>> >>>Dawie Coetzee >>> >>> >>>________________________________ >>>From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>>Sent: Sat, 21 May, 2011 22:52:06 >>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment >>> >>>Hi Dawie >>> >>>Very interesting, food for thought, thankyou. >>> >>>I don't agree with this though: >>> >>>>Our relationship to those non-human >>>>beings with which we have a long-standing symbiosis rests on may >>>>factors, not >>>>least of which is that our canine and feline companions have the knack of >>>>looking at the bit where our eyes are when trying to communicate >>>>with us. They >>>>literally face us, as we face one another when speaking to one >>>>another; and that >>>>makes them intelligible to us. Birds, even very bright ones, don't do that, >>>>because their use of vision is different. Hence our relationship to them is >>>>slightly different - however that does not preclude meaningful >>>>engagement with >>>>various sorts of birds. >>> >>>Clearly you haven't kept chickens, A newly hatched chick will look >>>you in the eye when it emerges from the egg. It's unmistakeable. So >>>too will its mum, and the same applies to ducks and geese, and indeed >>>to all birds. Not only birds - a lizard will look you in the eye too. >> > >>>Ethological studies have advanced quite a lot in the last decade or >>>so. It emerges for instance that birds are smarter than dogs, they're >>>about as smart as monkeys. >>> >>>That's what the science says, though maybe my attitude to it helps >>>(or doesn't help, whichever). I had to come off the idea quite a long >>>time ago that I'm any smarter than they are, if as smart. I don't >>>think I've ever seen a dumb animal, apart from some people's pets >>>(rendered dumb). They all seem to go about their daily business on >>>the face of this fair planet with at least as much good sense as I > > >can muster going about mine. _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
