Showing posts with label disaster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disaster. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Japanese suffering


The news outlets are all loaded with the recent 8.9 earthquake followed with a tsunami that hit the northeast of Japan. My condolences and prayers go out to those poor people caught up in this horrendous disaster. There is nothing good to come of this mess. The media is focusing on the nuclear reactor problems Japan is having, but I believe that the problems with meltdown are overblown and the government should worry about other much more severe problems at hand.

Nuclear reactor issues at Fukushima have caused quite a stir. Some of the buildings had explosions and several fires have erupted. The fear is of a reactor meltdown releasing a significant amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere may occur if officials can not cool down a couple of the reactors. Fear of a meltdown is real. Radiation in the local area has been measured at a magnitude or greater than background. Long term exposure to this level is unhealthy, but could mitigated. If meltdown does commence, the release would be devastating to local regions up to 50 miles from the plant. Anyone present when a meltdown release occurs would be exposed to a large quantity of toxic materials potentially resulting in all sorts of radiation sickness and future cancer. Very bad! Beyond the local region, I do not see effects from radiation or radioactive materials hurting people. Even with winds blowing materials.

What should be of concern are more mundane, yet destructive problems that could occur from the disaster. The ability to deliver clean water and food has been wiped out by the disaster. Transportation methods are all disabled. Millions of people are also homeless in the aftermath. If these people do quickly get water and food, they will face dehydration or starvation. This requires only a few days without basics, so this threat is imminent. Getting in the necessary supplies into the area is difficult when roads, railways, airports and shipping are all wiped out. The secondary threat is from water-born disease. Cholera and typhoid easily spread with stagnate water loaded full of dirty debris including sewage and various animal/human corps. Dealing with a health epidemic inside a natural disaster would only add to the woes. If either problem previously described in this paragraph take hold, tens of thousand of people could unnecessarily perish.

I guess our media has to hype the politically sensitive issues even though they are the least threatening. No one wants to tune into hear the standard starvation/disease monologue which occurs routinely. Nuclear meltdowns occur once in a decade and make sensational stories. When watching media stories, remember this.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Oil all over the Gulf


Everyone is talking about that British Petroleum (BP) oil rig that is leaking 200,000 gallons (~40,000 barrels) of oil into the Gulf of Mexico daily. I try to avoid politically charged topics, but this fits into a couple of prior post covering the limited oil available in the world and the current, unrealistic view of alternative energy. I will converge on these ideas near the end. I really see no good side to this mess as the politicos will start spewing hateful, partisan words. No one is willing to accept our society's dependency on oil or is willing to properly invest in an alternative.

First, the oil spill from this oil rig is a disaster. The oil is getting spread everywhere in the Gulf and will find its way onto the Gulf beaches. Most likely the spill will contaminate beautiful beaches for years into the future. Tourism is going to drop. It will also devastate the local fisheries and shrimping industry. My heart goes out to these victims living in the region. BP
should pay for every portion of the clean up and also provide a monetary fund for these people. Even if BP pays, it will not make up for the economic damage. Damage is done.

Second, the technological issue comes from the leak source. It appears as if safety mechanisms failed, and the several leaks are hundreds of feed underwater. The high oil pressure is just spraying crude oil into the water uncontrollably. It is difficult working at such depths. BP can't just easily turn off the oil. That is why this incident has turned into such a mess. Whether BP was drilling responsibly or whether they were taking undue risks, we shall never know. Hopefully, what did occur will bring about new equipment or regulations to prevent such a mess in the future (there is some optimist in me).

Third, we would like to ween ourselves off of oil, but no alternative exists. Two factors play into this: 1) partisan politics preventing significant action, 2) those who are proponents of alternative fuel sources are dishonest at the current oil alternative development, years from implementation. This being said, if the oil supply decrease by 50 % or more over night the results would be devastating to the Western world. These events would occur.

  1. The economy would suffer a severe slump. Transporting goods and items from factories to stores would cease. Consumers could not reach stores to buy goods. Workers could not go to employment sites. Severe disruption to our daily life would occur.
  2. Travel beyond a few miles would cease. No planes, trains or automobiles. Kiss any business or pleasure trip good bye.
  3. Mass starvation. Our food sources from agriculture are dependent upon oil. It takes oil to power tractors to plow fields. Oil is required to plant and harvest crops. Modern day nitrogen based fertilizers use oil as the primary feedstock. Even what little food could be harvested, it would not make it to market.
Oil is more important than what people realize. This is why we as a society should be investing heavily into research and development towards an ecologically safe, renewable oil alternative. Government and private sources combined. We need to make this a reality in the next few years, not decades as the current path is leading us. It will be a liquid fuel based transportation and not electric vehicles as I argued against (electric cars could contribute in a limited fashion). Potentially, our modern society's future survival depends upon this action.