(Note, this post represents me kicking these ideas around, and beginning an initial exploration of them... as such, it will not be heavily cited beyond what I think readers may need to understand a given point)
Recently, some thoughts have arisen in the lab I belong to about a different way to think of cities: as human habitat, modified by humans through all our ecological behavior to suit us.
It's a given that all species alter their habitat. They may do this through herbivory, nest building, tunneling, alteration of biogeochemical cycles, even by changing the local climate. The impacts of many species are relatively minor compared on their own. A handful of species directly produce large changes in their environment through their behavior that other organisms have to reckon with. Beavers, elephants, and humans spring to mind. For the bulk of our few million years on the planet hominins have been no more of a force to reckon with than most other species.
Even after the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens--possibly the most versatile and hardy animal to grace the face of the Earth--we didn't tend to have too outsize an impact. We may have cleared some land, burned grasslands in a purposeful way, and eaten a number of species into extinction, but we have otherwise lived within our niche as omnivorous apex predators without massively disturbing the Earth at large.
This would largely seem to be because humans historically lived in a relatively integrated manner within other ecosystems, making both intensive and extensive use of resources as necessary, and often being highly mobile (whether residentially or logistically). The high mobility and relatively small numbers of humans kept us from doing too much damage to the ecosystems we inhabited. Our versatility and cleverness occasionally enabled us to abuse our surroundings in ways other species cannot. After all, wolves can't switch to shellfish and tubers after all the giant flightless birds have been eaten.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Friday, April 12, 2013
Friday, January 20, 2012
For Science: Fountain Pens
I've decide that I would launch a series on this here blog, which I am titling "For Science", drawing on a popular meme (and I am very fond of Portal myself). In this series of indeterminate duration and frequency, I'm going to write about things that I think are useful for scientific use, and beyond.
This time, the subject matter is fountain pens. Yes, fountain pens. That probably seems like a rather odd topic, so allow me to give a brief diversionary explanation. On Christmas, I was somewhat unexpectedly gifted with a vintage Parker 51 fountain pen (it's a very dark green, basically this pen). It's a lovely bit of work, and considered the greatest fountain pen of all time by many. It is also not a cheap thing, and wasn't even when new.
And having a fountain pen, for the first time in my life, got me to thinking about how we write, and what we write with. I have long held up the plastic water bottle as the ironic symbol of modern civilization. It is made out of a material that lasts essentially forever, is filled with something we can get for almost free, and is intended to be used only once. And then thrown away. The standard ballpoint pen is remarkably similar. Intended to be cheap, convenient and inconsequential to lose, and yet made of immortal materials.
I began to wonder how many hundreds of pens I had bought or borrowed, and then lost or thrown away over the course of my life. Estimates put the number of pens thrown away by Americans per year north of 1 billion. That's pretty terrible. I had recently attempted to only buy pens I could get refills for, but found that the refills were often hard to come by, and that the pens themselves were often no great shakes. The idea of having a few well crafted and durable pens that I might use from here until I no longer need to write had never really occurred to me. Until I was given this Parker.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
SXSW: Finally my Final Thoughts.
My apologies, loyal readers.
Among the varied reasons I rarely travel is that fact that it tends to throw the rest of my life into some disarray. Missing an entire week of classes and research responsibilities added substantially to that disarray, and the process of catching up.
I have also been turning over the conference, and attempting to figure out what I actually thought of the experience. Even now, nearly a month after the fact, I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it.
The last day of the conference, I did not attend any of the morning sessions, but took the time to mosey around Austin a bit, and see more of the city. The final keynote was delivered by Philippe Cousteau Jr., and he did a fine job. He told a few very good stories about how he arrived on the scene, beginning with the events that turned his grandfather from someone who was first an explorer into an environmentalist. His delivery sagged in a few points, and he dodged a fewer of the tougher questions put to him by the audience, but effectively delivered the core of his message, which lined up well with a lot of what was put forward by many at the conference: That as a movement, environmentalism has stalled out because of the cultural divide in the US, and that if we wish to make progress, we have to put aside ideology to find common goals, and regain some lost ground.
And it's here that I run aground. It's not that I disagree, because I don't. But this is actually an incredibly difficult proposition, for individuals as well as organizations. The political atmosphere in the US might be termed "ionizing"; even the most neutral proposition will be struck by outside forces and laden with charged political issues. SXSWEco was full of rhetoric and statements about making common ground, setting aside ideological issues, and being practical... and that is all well and good. But how are we supposed to do this?
This is a strategy that one uses because of a lack of power and leverage. It requires finding allies within the edifices of power to be effective. This does not appear to be possible on a great many issues. Anthropogenic Climate Change is regard as more or less a fact of life by the US military, who plan accordingly, but denied by the majority of hawks in the US government, to the extent of altering or suppressing EPA scientific reports for political ends. How does one find common ground on issues with this crowd? Particularly when working with an environmental group may open them up to criticism from within their own ranks?
So I remain torn. I think that many of the discussion that were had at SXSWEco were useful, and needed to happen. But the over arching theme of diversifying the message and setting aside ideological positions ultimately lacks practicality and vital substance.
I would consider attending again next year, on the hopes that more practical issues could be addressed (and assuming the costs come down, given that it was far more expensive than an event like ESA). This might be unlikely to occur, given that SXSW as an organixation tends to focus on ideas and innovation, but implementation is incredibly important, and cannot be ignored in these discussions.
Among the varied reasons I rarely travel is that fact that it tends to throw the rest of my life into some disarray. Missing an entire week of classes and research responsibilities added substantially to that disarray, and the process of catching up.
I have also been turning over the conference, and attempting to figure out what I actually thought of the experience. Even now, nearly a month after the fact, I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it.
The last day of the conference, I did not attend any of the morning sessions, but took the time to mosey around Austin a bit, and see more of the city. The final keynote was delivered by Philippe Cousteau Jr., and he did a fine job. He told a few very good stories about how he arrived on the scene, beginning with the events that turned his grandfather from someone who was first an explorer into an environmentalist. His delivery sagged in a few points, and he dodged a fewer of the tougher questions put to him by the audience, but effectively delivered the core of his message, which lined up well with a lot of what was put forward by many at the conference: That as a movement, environmentalism has stalled out because of the cultural divide in the US, and that if we wish to make progress, we have to put aside ideology to find common goals, and regain some lost ground.
And it's here that I run aground. It's not that I disagree, because I don't. But this is actually an incredibly difficult proposition, for individuals as well as organizations. The political atmosphere in the US might be termed "ionizing"; even the most neutral proposition will be struck by outside forces and laden with charged political issues. SXSWEco was full of rhetoric and statements about making common ground, setting aside ideological issues, and being practical... and that is all well and good. But how are we supposed to do this?
This is a strategy that one uses because of a lack of power and leverage. It requires finding allies within the edifices of power to be effective. This does not appear to be possible on a great many issues. Anthropogenic Climate Change is regard as more or less a fact of life by the US military, who plan accordingly, but denied by the majority of hawks in the US government, to the extent of altering or suppressing EPA scientific reports for political ends. How does one find common ground on issues with this crowd? Particularly when working with an environmental group may open them up to criticism from within their own ranks?
So I remain torn. I think that many of the discussion that were had at SXSWEco were useful, and needed to happen. But the over arching theme of diversifying the message and setting aside ideological positions ultimately lacks practicality and vital substance.
I would consider attending again next year, on the hopes that more practical issues could be addressed (and assuming the costs come down, given that it was far more expensive than an event like ESA). This might be unlikely to occur, given that SXSW as an organixation tends to focus on ideas and innovation, but implementation is incredibly important, and cannot be ignored in these discussions.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Day Two: Themes
Today has been a day of themes emerging from the apparent randomness of the various talks.
One hopes that this was planned by the organizers, but one never really knows.
The day began a bit late, with the Consuming Better: What Neuroscience Says About a Sustainable Future which echoed some of the sentiments of the keynote from Tuesday. The primary gist is this: You cannot expect humans to stop acting like humans. The only thing you can do is engineer systems that take into account how humans actually behave and make decisions.
And that's an important idea. Much of the root cause of a lot of the failures in environmental policy thus far have been because we try to push for how people to behave the way they should act, even when that seems to be in direct contradiction with how they do act. Most people simply don't want less. They don't want to live in a low energy society. The previous people who did live in such a society opted to create this one, and people make the transition from an agrarian life style to an urban one at an astonishing rate every day.
Neuroscience is showing us that human brains are not rational devices, but that they are somewhat predictable. Most humans tend towards outcomes that lend them perceived status relative to their peers, even if that means they are worse off, in absolute terms. This means that our brains will fool us: wine we believe to be expensive tastes better than wine we think is cheap. We engage in conspicuous consumption.
Another interesting fact is that when you provide people with feedback, they shape their behavior to optimize that feedback signal. Thus we drive a car more efficiently when we can see the mileage instantaneously (the Prius Effect).
If we can manage the energy problem (which is no small feat) and take these things about human nature into consideration, then we can go a long way towards having a more sustainable society.
One hopes that this was planned by the organizers, but one never really knows.
The day began a bit late, with the Consuming Better: What Neuroscience Says About a Sustainable Future which echoed some of the sentiments of the keynote from Tuesday. The primary gist is this: You cannot expect humans to stop acting like humans. The only thing you can do is engineer systems that take into account how humans actually behave and make decisions.
And that's an important idea. Much of the root cause of a lot of the failures in environmental policy thus far have been because we try to push for how people to behave the way they should act, even when that seems to be in direct contradiction with how they do act. Most people simply don't want less. They don't want to live in a low energy society. The previous people who did live in such a society opted to create this one, and people make the transition from an agrarian life style to an urban one at an astonishing rate every day.
Neuroscience is showing us that human brains are not rational devices, but that they are somewhat predictable. Most humans tend towards outcomes that lend them perceived status relative to their peers, even if that means they are worse off, in absolute terms. This means that our brains will fool us: wine we believe to be expensive tastes better than wine we think is cheap. We engage in conspicuous consumption.
Another interesting fact is that when you provide people with feedback, they shape their behavior to optimize that feedback signal. Thus we drive a car more efficiently when we can see the mileage instantaneously (the Prius Effect).
If we can manage the energy problem (which is no small feat) and take these things about human nature into consideration, then we can go a long way towards having a more sustainable society.
Day One Part Two (All about Coal and Grass)
So, lunch time here at the conference, just saw a very interesting presentation about how bad people are at consuming less. But! First I want to update about the end of the day yesterday.
One of the talks I was looking forward to seeing the most was also one of the shortest.
With the provocative title of "No More Coal: The business case of ending an industry", it was presented by Gil Friend, of Natural Logic. He was apparently prepared to give an hour, but only had fifteen minutes, and so didn't bother with slides, and just read things off his phone.
For all that, his presentation was pretty good, as he clearly knew the material backwards and forwards.
Mr. Friend posited the idea that if we look at the global subsidies for the coal industry, they may amount to something like 200 billion US dollars (there are apparently not good data, so it's a ball park figure). However, the industry only has a worth of approximately 150 billion US. Which means that we, as a species, sink 50 billion dollars a year into an industry that ultimately is causing us a lot of problems, and which isn't even economically viable without subsidies. Thus, he suggests we could do several things. The most radical is to use that same subsidy money to buy out the mines, and shut them down. This strikes me as phenomenally unlikely. Another, potentially more viable option would be to simply end all subsidies, period. This would do a couple of things: it would drastically drive up the cost of coal, drive many mines out of business, and potentially level the playing field in the energy sector, giving renewables an opening to grab some market share.
However, and maybe he didn't discuss this because of time issues, it would also have the impact of driving up energy prices. Many, many parts of the country use coal to generate electricity. A drastic increase in price or decrease in availability would impact electricity production in ugly ways. This would have the net effect of reducing consumption, but probably not in a way that would be beneficial to society, at least in the near term.
The next talk was also a fifteen minute number, delivered by Mark Simmons, from the SITES initiative talk. He recycled some material, particularly about his desire to live in Middle Earth, rather than some ultra urbanized future. In something of a recurring theme at this convention, he opened by talking about the carbon storage capacity of grasslands (which is only surpassed by wetlands), but then shifted gears to talk about other ecosystem services, and restoration projects. In particular, he pointed out how much more durable and resistant to drought lawns made up of a mix of local grasses are than imported turf grasses. He also discussed a restoration project here in Austin, bringing back some of the blackland prairie that has almost disappeared from the Texas landscape. Perhaps the most interesting part, for me, were the slides showing the superior performance here in Texas of a mix of local grasses to the sedums typically used for green roof installations. This wasn't too surprising, given some of the green roof literature I've seen, showing that a suite of local species often perform better than the generic sedum mix widely used, but it was nice to see none the less.
It was not, shall we say, a presentation that invoked deep thinking, but showed how relatively simple it can be to address a lot of the issues that we face as an increasingly urban species.
Later this evening, I'll post some updates about today's events, which so far are shaping up to be excellent.
One of the talks I was looking forward to seeing the most was also one of the shortest.
With the provocative title of "No More Coal: The business case of ending an industry", it was presented by Gil Friend, of Natural Logic. He was apparently prepared to give an hour, but only had fifteen minutes, and so didn't bother with slides, and just read things off his phone.
For all that, his presentation was pretty good, as he clearly knew the material backwards and forwards.
Mr. Friend posited the idea that if we look at the global subsidies for the coal industry, they may amount to something like 200 billion US dollars (there are apparently not good data, so it's a ball park figure). However, the industry only has a worth of approximately 150 billion US. Which means that we, as a species, sink 50 billion dollars a year into an industry that ultimately is causing us a lot of problems, and which isn't even economically viable without subsidies. Thus, he suggests we could do several things. The most radical is to use that same subsidy money to buy out the mines, and shut them down. This strikes me as phenomenally unlikely. Another, potentially more viable option would be to simply end all subsidies, period. This would do a couple of things: it would drastically drive up the cost of coal, drive many mines out of business, and potentially level the playing field in the energy sector, giving renewables an opening to grab some market share.
However, and maybe he didn't discuss this because of time issues, it would also have the impact of driving up energy prices. Many, many parts of the country use coal to generate electricity. A drastic increase in price or decrease in availability would impact electricity production in ugly ways. This would have the net effect of reducing consumption, but probably not in a way that would be beneficial to society, at least in the near term.
The next talk was also a fifteen minute number, delivered by Mark Simmons, from the SITES initiative talk. He recycled some material, particularly about his desire to live in Middle Earth, rather than some ultra urbanized future. In something of a recurring theme at this convention, he opened by talking about the carbon storage capacity of grasslands (which is only surpassed by wetlands), but then shifted gears to talk about other ecosystem services, and restoration projects. In particular, he pointed out how much more durable and resistant to drought lawns made up of a mix of local grasses are than imported turf grasses. He also discussed a restoration project here in Austin, bringing back some of the blackland prairie that has almost disappeared from the Texas landscape. Perhaps the most interesting part, for me, were the slides showing the superior performance here in Texas of a mix of local grasses to the sedums typically used for green roof installations. This wasn't too surprising, given some of the green roof literature I've seen, showing that a suite of local species often perform better than the generic sedum mix widely used, but it was nice to see none the less.
It was not, shall we say, a presentation that invoked deep thinking, but showed how relatively simple it can be to address a lot of the issues that we face as an increasingly urban species.
Later this evening, I'll post some updates about today's events, which so far are shaping up to be excellent.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Day One
So, Day One of SXSWEco, in lovely Austin, Texas. Today was only a half day of content, perhaps to give attendees traveling into the city an opportunity to arrive today and not miss anything.
The first panel I decided to attend was "Living Laboratories: How Landscapes Give Back". This was put on by some of the organizers of the Sustainable SITES Intiative.
SITES is essentially a LEED certification system for the great outdoors, intended to deal with the fact that most developed landscapes are something of a nightmare, ecologically speaking. SITES is currently in the pilot phase, with approximately 150 projects scattered throughout the US, and a few in Europe (including Iceland, interesting enough). Based on the results from the pilot projects, the guidelines and scoring system will be revised, and then released for general use. One of the very interesting things about SITES is the a focus on function and ecosystem services; it's not necessarily about restoring the original landscape, but creating and maintaining one that provides value to the human occupants by being a functional ecosystem. One can get bonus points by planting natives, but it's not necessary and in a lot of cases, simply won't be practical. And because landscape architects are involved, you can be certain there will also be an emphasis on aesthetics on most projects. The main points of the program deal with the green part of the landscape (through a biomass density index, which is similar to leaf area index, but the scale has average values for eco-regions) and water.
The water issues addressed by the certification process are those most familiar to anyone who has worked with surface water in urban areas: controlling and reducing runoff from storm events, improving and protecting water quality, and restoring natural/appropriate stream geomorphology. There is also a focus on water usage, particularly reducing the use of potable water for irrigation. This provides a balance to the plant side of the equation, by penalizing for installing more biomass than the site can support without additional water inputs.
Soil was also dealt with briefly in the discussion (as I asked about it). 'Prime farmland' will not eligible for the program, unless it has already been developed or otherwise degraded and is no longer in agricultural use, and it sounded like some sort of soil management plan will need to be put in place along with the management and monitoring plans for the plant community and water components of the landscape.
One thing SITES will not deal with (at least immediately) is animal life. This, according to Mark Simmons (when asked a challenging landscape ecology question), was because there was simply too much regional complexity for the program to deal with immediately. Over time he thought it was likely that regionally focused animal habitat components will be developed and integrated into the certification.
Personally, I think SITES is extremely promising, and has potential to really deeply affect the way outdoor spaces are designed and maintained in the future. We can hope--as Mr. Simmons said on more than one occasion--to at least do things less wrong.
The first panel I decided to attend was "Living Laboratories: How Landscapes Give Back". This was put on by some of the organizers of the Sustainable SITES Intiative.
SITES is essentially a LEED certification system for the great outdoors, intended to deal with the fact that most developed landscapes are something of a nightmare, ecologically speaking. SITES is currently in the pilot phase, with approximately 150 projects scattered throughout the US, and a few in Europe (including Iceland, interesting enough). Based on the results from the pilot projects, the guidelines and scoring system will be revised, and then released for general use. One of the very interesting things about SITES is the a focus on function and ecosystem services; it's not necessarily about restoring the original landscape, but creating and maintaining one that provides value to the human occupants by being a functional ecosystem. One can get bonus points by planting natives, but it's not necessary and in a lot of cases, simply won't be practical. And because landscape architects are involved, you can be certain there will also be an emphasis on aesthetics on most projects. The main points of the program deal with the green part of the landscape (through a biomass density index, which is similar to leaf area index, but the scale has average values for eco-regions) and water.
The water issues addressed by the certification process are those most familiar to anyone who has worked with surface water in urban areas: controlling and reducing runoff from storm events, improving and protecting water quality, and restoring natural/appropriate stream geomorphology. There is also a focus on water usage, particularly reducing the use of potable water for irrigation. This provides a balance to the plant side of the equation, by penalizing for installing more biomass than the site can support without additional water inputs.
Soil was also dealt with briefly in the discussion (as I asked about it). 'Prime farmland' will not eligible for the program, unless it has already been developed or otherwise degraded and is no longer in agricultural use, and it sounded like some sort of soil management plan will need to be put in place along with the management and monitoring plans for the plant community and water components of the landscape.
One thing SITES will not deal with (at least immediately) is animal life. This, according to Mark Simmons (when asked a challenging landscape ecology question), was because there was simply too much regional complexity for the program to deal with immediately. Over time he thought it was likely that regionally focused animal habitat components will be developed and integrated into the certification.
Personally, I think SITES is extremely promising, and has potential to really deeply affect the way outdoor spaces are designed and maintained in the future. We can hope--as Mr. Simmons said on more than one occasion--to at least do things less wrong.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Bad News: Now in Video Form
Just to expand on the Arctic Ice Minimum issue a little bit:
A pretty nice (if depressing) little summation.
One of the things I think is very peculiar, and that seems to receive infrequent commentary is that the US military has no doubts about climate change issues. Here we see a Navy scientist discussing an impending ice free Arctic in the summer. This, of course, has serious strategic consequences for the Navy, and they take it seriously. It's bizarre to me that one of the most trusted components of the US government could internally take a position different from that of the government at large, and that the public doesn't seem to know, or to care. Very strange to me.
Of course, the unwillingness of people to accept data for what are ultimately political reasons is strange to me as well, even though it shouldn't be.
We are, after all, only a bunch of irrational, clannish primates.
(tip of the hat to P.Z. Myers for the video)
A pretty nice (if depressing) little summation.
One of the things I think is very peculiar, and that seems to receive infrequent commentary is that the US military has no doubts about climate change issues. Here we see a Navy scientist discussing an impending ice free Arctic in the summer. This, of course, has serious strategic consequences for the Navy, and they take it seriously. It's bizarre to me that one of the most trusted components of the US government could internally take a position different from that of the government at large, and that the public doesn't seem to know, or to care. Very strange to me.
Of course, the unwillingness of people to accept data for what are ultimately political reasons is strange to me as well, even though it shouldn't be.
We are, after all, only a bunch of irrational, clannish primates.
(tip of the hat to P.Z. Myers for the video)
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Polished
Nature is a remarkable thing.
In particular, it is much more resilient than we sometimes think, and responds to things we do to it in subtle and surprising ways. This is one of the themes, for me, of Urban Ecology. People like to think of cities as completely unnatural, but they are often full of life earning an existence in every crack, open space, basement, and rooftop.
Sometimes, though, nature just responds to our bad behavior with beauty.
Take Glass Beach:
(image by photoscot, all rights reserved.)
These are the remains of untold glass objects chucked off a cliff and down into the sea near Fort Bragg, in California. There was, apparently much more garbage as well, since cleaned up. But the ocean took all that glass for itself, and made new stones from it, to pebble the beach with, and something beautiful and unexpected is the result.
You can seem more images, and read a bit more here.
(tip' o the hat to Meredith Yayanos for the link)
In particular, it is much more resilient than we sometimes think, and responds to things we do to it in subtle and surprising ways. This is one of the themes, for me, of Urban Ecology. People like to think of cities as completely unnatural, but they are often full of life earning an existence in every crack, open space, basement, and rooftop.
Sometimes, though, nature just responds to our bad behavior with beauty.
Take Glass Beach:
(image by photoscot, all rights reserved.)
These are the remains of untold glass objects chucked off a cliff and down into the sea near Fort Bragg, in California. There was, apparently much more garbage as well, since cleaned up. But the ocean took all that glass for itself, and made new stones from it, to pebble the beach with, and something beautiful and unexpected is the result.
You can seem more images, and read a bit more here.
(tip' o the hat to Meredith Yayanos for the link)
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Spy vs Spy
You may recognize that bug right there, performing a little insect arabesque. This is a Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica), a long standing invasive beetle. I remember seeing them in my Aunt's pool as a kid, where they would inevitably seem to get stuck and end up drowning, but not before trying to climb onto you with their pointy little beetle legs. It's been a while since I've seen one, but I suspect it's only because I haven't been looking. While out doing field work I spotted this one, along with a flower crab spider, just barely visible around the bottom of the unopened thistle (slightly better picture of it here, I suspect it got a bit more than it was bargaining for when this beetle showed up). Japanese beetles are notorious for being extremely unpicky eaters: as adults they'll chew up pretty much anything green, and can do serious damage during population peaks.
Interestingly, this one has chosen to settle down for dinner on another invader, the Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). The Canada thistle is a very, very common invasive weed in this area, particularly along rail road tracks and road sides (this picture is taken less than five meters from the edge of the road). It's very good at crowding out other plants, and is extremely hardy. In this instance, the Japanese beetle (which is not considered a major problem in Indiana) is performing a very slight service by attacking the unopened flower of this plant. In the long run, it wont make much difference that this particular beetle stopped to eat this particular flower. But it does illustrate that invasive management is often not a clear cut thing, as pest species can turn against each other, or perform useful ecosystem services (pdf).
You can read more about controlling Japanese beetles here (pdf), and here.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Fukushima Daiichi: Update
I cannot in good faith go without writing an update on this issue, given the new information made available to the public. Now, the worst sounding of these news stories (the first link) consists of unofficial information, leaked to the press. The basic summary, according that news story (and since reported in a great many places, including the PBS Newshour) was that the fuel in Reactor 1 melted very shortly after the loss of power, and may have violated the integrity of the pressure vessel (there has been some throwing around of the word 'containment' in an unclear way in the press, which is not helpful). There has also been a substantial uptick in the estimated amount of radiation released.
Now, a few points here: Firstly, the last news story linked above suggests that TEPCO does not believe the pressure vessel was seriously violated, which is in line with what happened at Three Mile Island as I discussed briefly before. Second, all of the information reported thus far has been based on estimates of what took place, the size of potential breaches, new information obtained by the recalibration of instrumentation on site, etc. What this means is that these new numbers are potentially not much better than the previous, and in keeping with much of the data presented by the Japanese, is something of a worst case.
Now, a few points here: Firstly, the last news story linked above suggests that TEPCO does not believe the pressure vessel was seriously violated, which is in line with what happened at Three Mile Island as I discussed briefly before. Second, all of the information reported thus far has been based on estimates of what took place, the size of potential breaches, new information obtained by the recalibration of instrumentation on site, etc. What this means is that these new numbers are potentially not much better than the previous, and in keeping with much of the data presented by the Japanese, is something of a worst case.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Decline by Fall (part II)
As I mentioned, here is the second half of the bumblebee paper (first half here). This section is probably more accessible, as it's a good bit less technical. A quick summary of the first half: many species of wild bumblebees are in steep decline around the world, for as yet unknown reasons. Potential sources of the decline may be parasites spread by commercially reared bees, the impact of pesticides (which are not typically lethal, but which may negatively impact colony health, and on which the research is very conflicted), and problems associated with habitat loss, foraging patterns, and when bees emerge. The second part of this paper deals with how we might move to protect wild bees.
Conservation of Bumblebees
The above factors (parasites, pesticides, habitat loss, and bee phenology) may interact in unknown ways to produce the worldwide decline of some species of bumblebees. Because these bees are important for food production purposes and the maintenance of current ecosystem structures dependent on their pollination activities, successful conservation efforts will need to mitigate as many potential negative factors acting on their populations as possible, until precise, species-specific causes can be determined, and more detailed conservation plans produced. Steps such as reducing rates of parasitic infestation in commercial bumblebees are of obvious benefit to the stakeholders, while it may be more difficult to generate interest in others, such as active management of field margins, or a return to crop rotations involving fallow periods.
Conservation of Bumblebees
The above factors (parasites, pesticides, habitat loss, and bee phenology) may interact in unknown ways to produce the worldwide decline of some species of bumblebees. Because these bees are important for food production purposes and the maintenance of current ecosystem structures dependent on their pollination activities, successful conservation efforts will need to mitigate as many potential negative factors acting on their populations as possible, until precise, species-specific causes can be determined, and more detailed conservation plans produced. Steps such as reducing rates of parasitic infestation in commercial bumblebees are of obvious benefit to the stakeholders, while it may be more difficult to generate interest in others, such as active management of field margins, or a return to crop rotations involving fallow periods.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Decline by Fall (part 1)
I promised I was going to talk about things other than nuclear power, and lo: so it shall be written, so it shall be done. Here, I present the first half of a paper I produced earlier this year, dealing with the fate of bumblebees. I'm quite fond of the fuzzy little beasts.
Introduction
While the mainstream press has been primarily focused on the precipitous decline of European honeybees (Apis melliferra) and the emergence of Colony Collapse Disorder, wild native bees have also been suffering significant losses in numbers and range ( reviewed by Spivak et al. 2011, Williams and Osborne 2009). There are some 4,000 species of bees native to North America, including bumblebees (Bombus spp), leafcutter bees (Megachile spp), mining bees (Andrena spp), mason bees (Osmia spp), and others, many of which are important pollinators of New World crops (Spivak et al. 2011). I will focus primarily on Bombus species, as these are among the most studied of wild bees, and include species that are reared commercially worldwide for use as pollinators of plants such as tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) and peppers (Capsicum spp) in greenhouses.
Across North America and Europe, wild bee losses have not been consistent, and the factors causing them are uncertain. Some species appear to be more or less unaffected, while others have suffered large losses, possibly due to species-specific ecological processes (reviewed by Murray et al. 2009). Three historically common, closely related North American Bombus species (B. occidentalis, B. affinis, B. terricola) have been shown to have large reductions in their home range (23-87%) and relative abundance, while other species have remained stable in their distribution and abundance (Cameron et al. 2011).
Introduction
While the mainstream press has been primarily focused on the precipitous decline of European honeybees (Apis melliferra) and the emergence of Colony Collapse Disorder, wild native bees have also been suffering significant losses in numbers and range ( reviewed by Spivak et al. 2011, Williams and Osborne 2009). There are some 4,000 species of bees native to North America, including bumblebees (Bombus spp), leafcutter bees (Megachile spp), mining bees (Andrena spp), mason bees (Osmia spp), and others, many of which are important pollinators of New World crops (Spivak et al. 2011). I will focus primarily on Bombus species, as these are among the most studied of wild bees, and include species that are reared commercially worldwide for use as pollinators of plants such as tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) and peppers (Capsicum spp) in greenhouses.
Across North America and Europe, wild bee losses have not been consistent, and the factors causing them are uncertain. Some species appear to be more or less unaffected, while others have suffered large losses, possibly due to species-specific ecological processes (reviewed by Murray et al. 2009). Three historically common, closely related North American Bombus species (B. occidentalis, B. affinis, B. terricola) have been shown to have large reductions in their home range (23-87%) and relative abundance, while other species have remained stable in their distribution and abundance (Cameron et al. 2011).
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Things are looking rough for Fukushima Daiichi, but not all bad news
Earlier this week, some workers at the Fukushima plant suffered from radiation burns when highly contaminated water got inside their protective clothing, as they waded towards a repair site. This prompted the ever cautious Japanese officials to warn that this might indicate a partial loss of containment.
My initial feeling about this was that it was very unlikely. Possible, yes, but not terribly likely, given that a breach of the pressure vessel would have drastically impacted efforts to circulate cooling water (pressure would drop rapidly and significantly, and probably stay down, regardless of how much water was pumped, for instance, which would be immediately detectable). It appears that my gut feeling was correct. While they haven't pinned down the source of the water yet, I'd put my money on damage to the reactor cooling system, which has likely developed a number of leaky valves, gaskets or pipes. The cooling system plumbing has been exposed to multiple hydrogen explosions, earthquakes, debris, and the corrosive effects of seawater. Enough water has been moving through it for a long enough period that even a relatively small leak of water containing fission products from the reactor will have had time to accumulate to dangerous levels inside the plant.
This radioactive water poses a problem to workers, first and foremost, and will significantly complicate repair efforts. Unfortunately, it may also pose a fairly significant environmental risk, depending on its source. If the leaks are occurring in places where the leaked water can come into contact with hot components, or if the leaks are a mixture of steam and water directly downstream from the pressure vessel, then a small, but significant amount of fission products (the main concerns are Cesium and Iodine, but in the long term, primarily Cesium 137, which has a half life of 30 years and has a decay chain that includes gamma decay) may be being dispersed from the plant. Even small amounts can accumulate over time in the near vicinity of the plant, and make uses like agriculture problematic for the near term future. It should be stressed that only water soluble products are likely to end up in the cooling water, so that means no plutonium or uranium are likely to be dispersed by the leaks, which is a very good thing.
My initial feeling about this was that it was very unlikely. Possible, yes, but not terribly likely, given that a breach of the pressure vessel would have drastically impacted efforts to circulate cooling water (pressure would drop rapidly and significantly, and probably stay down, regardless of how much water was pumped, for instance, which would be immediately detectable). It appears that my gut feeling was correct. While they haven't pinned down the source of the water yet, I'd put my money on damage to the reactor cooling system, which has likely developed a number of leaky valves, gaskets or pipes. The cooling system plumbing has been exposed to multiple hydrogen explosions, earthquakes, debris, and the corrosive effects of seawater. Enough water has been moving through it for a long enough period that even a relatively small leak of water containing fission products from the reactor will have had time to accumulate to dangerous levels inside the plant.
This radioactive water poses a problem to workers, first and foremost, and will significantly complicate repair efforts. Unfortunately, it may also pose a fairly significant environmental risk, depending on its source. If the leaks are occurring in places where the leaked water can come into contact with hot components, or if the leaks are a mixture of steam and water directly downstream from the pressure vessel, then a small, but significant amount of fission products (the main concerns are Cesium and Iodine, but in the long term, primarily Cesium 137, which has a half life of 30 years and has a decay chain that includes gamma decay) may be being dispersed from the plant. Even small amounts can accumulate over time in the near vicinity of the plant, and make uses like agriculture problematic for the near term future. It should be stressed that only water soluble products are likely to end up in the cooling water, so that means no plutonium or uranium are likely to be dispersed by the leaks, which is a very good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)