December 20, 2011

Scientists a step closer to cloning mammoth

Scientists a step closer to cloning mammoth
Kyodo

YAKUTSK, Russia — The thighbone of a mammoth found in August in Siberia contains well-preserved marrow, increasing the chances of cloning one of the extinct beasts, Japanese and Russian scientists confirmed recently.

The teams from the Sakha Republic's mammoth museum in eastern Russia and Kinki University's graduate school in biology-oriented science and technology will launch full-fledged joint research next year to clone the giant mammal, which is believed to have become extinct about 10,000 years ago, they said.

By transplanting nuclei taken from the marrow cells into elephant egg cells whose nuclei have been removed through a cloning technique, embryos with a mammoth gene could be produced and planted into elephant wombs, as the two species are close relatives, they said.

Securing nuclei with an undamaged gene is essential for the nucleus transplantation technique, but doing so from mammoths is extremely difficult and scientists have been trying to reproduce a mammoth since the late 1990s, they said.

In the Sakha Republic, global warming has thawed...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111204a2.html

December 19, 2011

Why the Western policy to end Japanese whaling has failed.

I have spent more than a decade in Japan, and their whaling practices were a matter of great concern to me then. I attended university in Tokyo and took a 4 year undergrad degree in what would be termed cultural anthropology here. I paid my way through school by teaching English to business people at a number of different Japanese corporations. The method of teaching required long periods of conversation with what amounted to several thousand people by the the time I finished. The students ranged from the newly hired to corporate CEOs, and ran the gamut of enterprises from scientific R&D to financial to automobile manufacturing, and even included a 6 month period at a Japanese fishery company.

Since one of the most universal topics of conversation I included was whaling, this allowed me to investigate the beliefs of the Japanese public at a depth that very few (if any) who are involved in fight against whaling have every had.

I've tried to share what I learned here on DU, only to have a select group of nuclear supporters use my opposition to the tactics of Paul Watson as a cudgel to diminish the audience for my views rejecting continued deployment of nuclear power. If you are genuinely concerned about the killing of whales, I think the message I have to offer is worth hearing in its entirety. (I should add that my training since anthropology centered on US and international ocean policy. This led to the topic of policy development related to offshore wind resources and that, in turn, to the subject of climate change and carbon free energy.)

A thread on DU2 contains the essential elements of the beliefs I hold as a result of my research in country research on whaling by the Japanese. Let me say that my evaluation causes me to believe the actions of the Sea Shephard are extremely damaging to our effort to stop the Japanese from whaling. I consider him to be either 1) competely deluded about his oppoosition, or 2) an opportunistic self promoter that is far more concerned with maintaining a base of hero worship than he is with actually doing something about the problem. I'm inclined towards #2.

My strong inclination when reading the discussion was to try to correct some obvious false assumptions. That's important to me because in a discussion, if someone tells you something you know is untrue as part of a larger argument, the normal human response is to reject the entire argument and label the person who insists on the false statement as "unreasonable". That ends negotiations.

The OP was about 2 crew from the Sea Shepard that had been taken into custody when they boarded a Japanese whaler.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3143254#3143463
Here it is:

My response to the OP:
I think it's funny. The Japanese have a terrific sense of humor, IMO. I don't endorse whaling, but, the Japanese have legal right to do what they are doing. They have gone along with completely illogical restrictions on whaling that, once at risk populations stabilized and recovered, have no basis in "scientific management" of the whale as a resource (which is the premise of the IWC).
We (in America) have extended the umbrella of human compassion to marine mammals and that is the real basis of our effort to halt whaling. When we argue at the IWC however, we make claims of extinction risk that are so obviously and grossly exaggerated that we end up just pissing them off.
This is the result of that dishonesty.
If we really want to stop them from whaling there is probably a way; but harassing them by ramming and boarding their ships is wrong and only serves to make them more determined.


On the taking by the Japanese of "endangered species" of whale:
Claim: Fin whales are endangered, and slaughtering them violates CITES. Japan has no legal right to slaughter these whales; the ICR whalers are poachers and should be treated as such.


Supporting evidence did not apply to international law governing what the Japanese were doing. My reply:
Your response is a perfect example of what's wrong. There are a lot of whale species that are endangered and the Japanese aren't hunting any of them. Your post makes a dishonest argument and that type of dishonesty is what has them pissed off. They are in waters that the Australian courts have no jurisdiction over and, as your article clearly states, they are targeting minke - an abundant species. They intended to take some humpbacks but altered their plans to accommodate the Western public. Instead of acknowledging the actuality of their actions in relation to the intent of the IWC and international law, there are too many who are willing to resort to the kind of dishonesty you've demonstrated.
All I'm saying is be honest - you don't want them killing whales because you like whales and feel that killing them has a sort of equivalency with the killing of a human. Essentially my thesis is that in the modern era, westerners have (for reasons that require a rather long explanation) extended the cannibalism/murder taboo to non-humans.
That is a valid enough claim to make to the Japanese; it doesn't need to be hidden and argued through the use of transparently false/misleading arguments."




In response to the claim that the Japanese have no "right" to engage in whaling:
Claim: Japan has no legal right to slaughter these whales; the ICR whalers are poachers. Speculating about my honesty is a relevance fallacy.


My reply:
They are absolutely within their rights, that's why there is no legal action to prevent what they are doing. And I'm not speculating about your honesty. I'm saying explicitly that the arguments you expressed are false and dishonest. It is relavent because it is this dishonesty that motivates the sense of nationalism which Japanese whalers depend on to shape public opinion in their favor.

Look at the other responses to my posts - a primary ingredient of those replies is indignation that the Japanese disguise their true motives (commercial whaling) behind the facade of scientific research. What makes you think the Japanese are any different than we are? The foundation of the IWC is scientific management of a resource. They entered into the IWC treaties in good faith based on that premise but saw the hijacking of that organization by anti-whaling interests that have not played square from day one. So when those opposed to whaling point to the obvious fiction of "scientific whaling" and claim duplicity on the part of the Japanese, do you know the effect of that criticism? Do you know how they react to the claim they are "buying" votes of smaller non-interested countries?
They love it for it is seen as justice for the miserable and DISHONORABLE way they have been treated in the IWC. Both the vote buying and lying are strategies that were employed FIRST by antiwhaling interests.

Let me repeat that I also want them to stop whaling. I just think that the key is honest discussion starting with the fact that they are violating a taboo that many feel as strongly about as they do murder or cannibalism. Believe it or not, the Japanese are an incredibly sympathetic and understanding people and I think they will respond positively such an appeal."




Claim: "Even the most healthy whale populations are still bare fractions of their historic numbers, whales reproduce slowly and to low numbers and are already threatened by climate change, pollution and destabilization of oceanic food chains due to commercial fishing. Two of the species targeted this year, fin whales and humpbacks (they later backed out on the humpback target under pressure) are endangered species, and while more common most species protection schemes list minkes as threatened, near-threatened or a species of concern, and they're relatively plentiful when compared to their kin. Quite frankly, there isn't a species of whale with ANY surplus population, before one even gets into the amount of cruelty involved in killing the poor beasts.
In any case, the IWC, of which Japan is a member, does not permit commercial whaling, and the ICRs program is clearly commercial in nature."


My reply:
"I believe your evaluation is flawed . I believe your evaluation is flawed if we start with the premise - as the IWC did - that whales are a resource to be managed and harvested.

Your argument is formed on beliefs and values that have very little do do with science and reproduction rates. I mean, really, look at what you wrote: "Quite frankly, there isn't a species of whale with ANY surplus population, before one even gets into the amount of cruelty involved in killing the poor beasts."

Do you see that you are making an emotional judgment first then evaluating information in a way that presets your conclusion? To emphasize my point I'll note that you've doubled the "sin" of Japanese by claiming "Two of the species targeted this year, fin whales and humpbacks (they later backed out on the humpback target under pressure) are endangered species."

Actually, the fin whales and the humpbacks are one and the same - the fins are a type of humpback. The minke is also a type of humpback, but is present in much much greater numbers than other flavors (excuse the pun, I couldn't resist) of humpback.

The point you raise regarding how many whales there actually are demonstrates well why honesty is important. The original estimates of the recovered minke population placed the number at nearly a million. As a counter to Japanese pressure to resume whaling a new estimate was made that reduced this number to less than 200,000. Later surveys put the number at nearly double that.

Now my point isn't the precision of the numbers, it is that the dishonesty of OUR argument has made the science suspect and provided for the Japanese a firm justification for thumbing their noses at us.

If someone wanted to kill dogs would you try to argue on the basis of their suitability as a food source or whould you argue from the heart based on compassion?"

Response to me:
Both arguments have validity. That there is no species of large whales currently within shouting distance of historical numbers is a fact only disputed by advocates of renewed commercial whaling.

That there's no way to kill a large oceangoing creature at all quickly while still leaving still leaving a mostly intact carcass to be "harvested" (and "studied" in the case of Japanese "scientific whaling&quot is both common sense and quite evident in the average time (about twenty minutes, and keep in mind that's a number that comes overwhelmingly from smaller minke whales) it takes even the very large and very modern Japanese fleet to kill one.

And while Fin whales, Humpbacks and Minke whales are fairly closely related as Rorqual whales, they are distinct species (and obviously visually distinct, for that matter) and are members of two different subfamilies. Humpbacks are subfamily Megapterinae while Fins and Minke (and Blue whales, to name a more famous relative) are subfamily Balaenopterinae."



I reply:
"Not saying there is no validity in your argument. What I said was that the basis for decision making within the IWC is NOT the one you are using. You have adopted the goal of reaching "historical numbers" (as if we knew what those were) instead of the stated IWC goal of managing a resource for harvest.

Can't you see the problem using such disingenuous arguments creates? You can't even acknowledge that you are using incorrect information - you wrote that the Japanese were hunting fin whales as well as humpbacks. They aren't. The 50 humpbacks they agreed not to take are the fin whales you are talking about.

The taboo argument is a valid one, you don't need to manufacture a smokescreen and outrage here. If you really want whaling stopped, you need to reach out to the Japanese people directly, let them know how you feel and "ask for their understanding." I put that in quotes because it is a standard phrase in Japanese negotiations. Another standard phrase - always a negative - is arrogant and high handed. That is how they perceive our dishonest actions and statements, as high handed and arrogant. If you want them to stop you must shift that perception to one of sincerity and deeply held emotional convictions."

******************************************************



This type of exchange has happened several times on a number of threads, but it was 6 months later that I proposed a concrete approach for a grass solution to an intractable diplomatic problem:

Thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3373043#3373631


"You don't see it, that's fair enough. Then it incumbent upon me to share with you what I see.

You have asserted that the Japanese are 'murdering' whales that are "going extinct".

In the first place, none of the whales that the Japanese have taken are even close to being in danger of going extinct. You have, however, clearly displayed your real objective. You object not because the whale is in danger of going extinct, because it isn't; you object because you have experienced a shift in the structure of your morality. If you had used the term 'murder' in reference to whaling in 1938, I suspect most people would have thought you a bit touched in the head.

Now, let me be clear, I also have experienced this shift in values. I also place a special value on the unknown potential of a whales intelligence. While I respect other life forms in general, I can't help but be more sympathetic to the creatures who have minds. Be it my dog, a big cat, a horse, a simian or ape relative, an elephant or a whale; when there is a connection possible there is a special bond possible.

What is important in my view is that people stop caricaturing the Japanese on this issue. They haven't gone along with us on this but the problem, in my view is that they simply haven't been given the courtesy of an honest and open discussion. Instead of that the approach by Western representatives on this matter has been deceitful and slanderous.

If you really want to stop the whaling, get together about 5000 people who will go to Japan and stand around the subway stations passing out leaflets saying something like "Please forgive us for caring so much about whales that we must ask you to change for our benefit. We understand it is very hard to make such changes under harsh criticisms and unfortunate statements of arrogance. We humbly ask you to please understand that we have no choice. Our new understanding of the whale's intelligence has made us feel that to kill a whale it to kill a human; that to eat a whale is to eat a human. Surely you can understand our feeling. If you felt we were eating people how could you endure us? Please, we beg you, stop."

No one, not once, has had the courtesy to be honest with the Japanese on this subject. The reason? Because to admit the motive is to be reduced to asking for their understanding. To ask for their understanding is to place yourself in a vulnerable position. So we argue from arrogance instead and then call them bloodthirsty for refusing to succumb to our coercion."


Back to present: while 5000 people seems like a lot, in the context of global concern about the problem and the amount of resources expended on decades of failed efforts it seems like a pretty minor effort to me.

December 18, 2011

Opinion Japan Times: Hollow excuses from Tepco

Hollow excuses from Tepco

Tokyo Electric Power Co. in early December made public an interim report by a study panel that it had appointed itself on the disaster that occurred at its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. The report details the unfolding of the disaster from the loss of all electric power sources to the meltdowns of the cores of three reactors.

Unfortunately, the report is loaded with self-justifying excuses. It is clear that the investigation of the disaster cannot be left solely to Tepco. Other entities, including the government third-party examination panel, the Diet examination panel and nongovernmental organizations, should carry out thorough investigations of their own and break any attempt by the nuclear power establishment to hide or distort information.

...

The report fails to fully record accounts by workers who were on the scene when the disaster struck. One wonders whether Tepco is sincerely trying to preserve accurate accounts of what happened at the plant to develop a true picture of the disaster.

A peculiar characteristic of the report is that Tepco blames the tsunami for causing the nuclear crisis while adamantly taking the position that the earthquake itself did not damage reactor components that play a vital role in ensuring that reactors operate safely. But Tepco employees working inside the reactor buildings at the time the quake struck reported seeing what they believed to be damaged cooling pipes. In addition, some experts say evidence exists that suggests the reactors' cooling systems had suffered damage before the tsunami struck...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20111218a1.html

December 17, 2011

Hacked climate emails: police seize computers at West Yorkshire home

"Hacked climate emails: police seize computers at West Yorkshire home
Police seize equipment as part of investigation into the theft of thousands of private emails from the University of East Anglia

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/15/hacked-climate-emails-police-west-yorkshire

December 17, 2011

Persistent drought in Romania threatens Danube's power

Persistent drought in Romania threatens Danube's power
Drop in the level of the river's waters means that nuclear reactor may have to close down
Guardian Weekly, Tuesday 13 December 2011 09.04 EST


In Cernavoda, a small town in southeast Romania, social housing projects stretch all along the left bank of the Danube. The now dilapidated buildings sprang up in the 1970s and 1980s, after the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu decided to build the country's first nuclear power plant there.

In his ambition for power and prosperity, he also ordered a canal to be built from Cernavoda to Constantza, a port on the Black Sea, to shorten the trade route by 400km. The excavations were done by thousands of political prisoners, many of whom died.

...The two reactors in the Cernavoda plant generate 20% of those needs and were built on the banks of the Danube to use its waters for cooling...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/13/drought-in-romania-threatens-danube-power


Lo, the intermittent nature of nuclear power...

December 17, 2011

British public strongly support renewable energy, survey says

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/dec/14/british-public-support-renewable-energy


From the letters section:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/15/climate-changes-for-renewable-energy

December 17, 2011

From the "fox watching the henhouse" file

French nuclear group to monitor health at Niger uranium mine
Sustained campaigning by advocacy groups bears fruit as new health monitoring scheme is afforded cautious welcome

For more than 40 years, inhabitants in two remote outposts in Niger have watched their health and environment deteriorate. The dust-enveloped towns lie on the outskirts of uranium mines clawed into the vast Sahara desert, one of which is the world's largest underground pit.

Last week, residents cautiously welcomed the news that French nuclear group Areva will begin monitoring the health of thousands of workers at its uranium plants next year, bowing to years of campaigning from advocacy groups.

The company, which is controlled by the French government, will carry out medical examinations on residents and its 1,600 employees in Niger, which ranked second bottom of 187 countries in the 2011 UN development index. "If cases of illness attributable to occupational factors are identified, the cost of the corresponding healthcare would be borne by Areva in the same way as for French medical coverage," said the company, which recorded first half profits of 351m euros (around $467m) in 2011.

Companies from France, the former colonial power, have had a monopoly on operations in Niger's uranium-rich northern belt since mining began in the 1960s. Today, Areva ships around 3,000 tons of uranium from Niger to France, where two-thirds of electricity is generated from nuclear power. But the pits in the arid Agadez region, operated in conjunction with the Nigerien government, have fuelled criticism from local and international rights groups, who say mining practices have endangered the health of some 80,000 people living in Arlit and Akokan.

"There are no roads here, it's ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/dec/12/french-nuclear-group-monitor-health-niger


I'm sure they will be eager to identify and compensate the workers for any adverse health consequences...

December 16, 2011

"How did we get a host?" a locked thread asks? Here is the answer.

This thread has been approved by Admin.
Main admin thread on hosting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=681
The discussion below starts at the subthread descending from post #28

Although there are few posts in the subthread, it occurs over several days.


In the midst of the discussion about hosting the EE group xemasab decided to preempt the process and appealed to be host in the (very busy) thread where Skinner was handing out host-ships(?). With no mention of the controversy in the thread, she made her request and linked to an innocuous post she had made which had no replies.

Link to post 28:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=466

As he did with a large number of other groups, Skinner granted the request.
"Done"

muriel_volestrangler then posted this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=581

Skinner's reply:


My reply to Skinner:


Skinner then threw it back to the members of the group.

So here we are.

In view of the well established pronuclear vs prorenewable warfare that has been ongoing here for several years, it is difficult to believe that we will all start getting along now.

xemasab has attempted lately to portray herself as pro-renewables, however her historical position is one that is *extremely* critical of both wind and solar - the backbone of a renewable system. She has consistently worked in concert over the years with the strong and overt pronuclear voices here. I do not accept that she has had a sudden conversion to sweetness and light since I've been on the receiving end of a multiyear effort led by to discourage posters from engaging in discussion with me.

The pronuclear voices have relentlessly hectored those critical of renewables and when they couldn't drive them off they have used every trick in the book to derail the discussions and make threads unreadable.

Their intent seems clear to me - they do not want this forum to function as a place where liberal, antinuclear sentiment can take root. And from what I have observed they are more than willing to discard any accepted social norm to accomplish that end. It was, in fact, their flagrant disregard for truth and the accompanying lack of shame for deliberately spreading false information that turned me against the technology overall. After watching the discussion here I realized the information related to nuclear I had based my prior acceptance of nuclear power on was, quite literally, nothing more than the output of a massive corporate propaganda campaign.

So while this period of adjustment to the new system for DU3 is underway, I would expect open and unfettered discussion. However, over time, I cannot see how the same people that have attempted so vociferously to silence nuclear critics could be expected to do anything other than act true to their nature.

If we go with an unhosted forum we well continue the status quo from DU2, but neither "side" will be comfortable with a primary host from the other.

Another alternative was mentioned that might have merit, however. I have polished it a bit and propose this, would it work if we had two groups labeled energy and environment?

Energy and Environment in a World of Nuclear Power
Where the pronuclear voices can lay out their vision with no disruptors.

And

Energy and Environment in a World of Renewable Power
Where those who group nuclear in with fossil fuels can lay out their vision of tomorrow with no disruptors.

December 16, 2011

'Absolutely no progress being made' at Fukushima nuke plant, undercover reporter says (MUST READ)

'Absolutely no progress being made' at Fukushima nuke plant, undercover reporter says

..."Absolutely no progress is being made" towards the final resolution of the crisis, Suzuki told reporters at a Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan news conference on Dec. 15. Suzuki, 55, worked for a Toshiba Corp. subsidiary as a general laborer there from July 13 to Aug. 22, documenting sloppy repair work, companies including plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) playing fast and loose with their workers' radiation doses, and a marked concern for appearances over the safety of employees or the public.

...

..."Reactor makers Toshiba and Hitachi (brought in to help resolve the crisis) each have their own technology, and they don't talk to each other. Toshiba doesn't tell Hitachi what it's doing, and Hitachi doesn't tell Toshiba what it's doing."

Meanwhile, despite there being no concrete data on the state of the reactor cores, claims by the government and TEPCO that the disaster is under control and that the reactors are on-schedule for a cold shutdown by the year's end have promoted a breakneck work schedule, leading to shoddy repairs and habitual disregard for worker safety, he said.

"Working at Fukushima is equivalent to being given an order to die," Suzuki quoted one nuclear-related company source as saying. He says plant workers regularly manipulate their radiation readings by reversing their dosimeters or putting them in their socks, giving them an extra 10 to 30 minutes on-site before they reach their daily dosage limit. In extreme cases, Suzuki said, workers even leave the radiation meters in their dormitories.

According to Suzuki...

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111216p2a00m0na002000c.html

December 15, 2011

Swiss charge 3 men in nuclear smuggling case

Swiss charge 3 men in nuclear smuggling case

GENEVA (AP) -- Three Swiss engineers - a father and his two sons - have been charged with breaking arms export laws by aiding a Pakistani-led nuclear smuggling ring that supplied Libya's atomic weapons program, prosecutors said Tuesday.

The formal indictment follows almost a decade of politically charged investigation by Swiss authorities that lifted the veil on one of the most successful international intelligence operations to stop nuclear proliferation to rogue states.

Urs Tinner, 46, his brother Marco, 43, and their father Friedrich, 74, are accused of providing technology and know-how to the nuclear smuggling network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, the federal prosecutors office in Bern said in a statement.

The A.Q. Khan smuggling ring sold key equipment such as centrifuges for uranium enrichment to various countries until its operations were disrupted in 2003.

Prosecutors said...

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/international/news/20111214p2g00m0in066000c.html


The case involves the attempt to smuggle "centrifuge parts" for Libya. This is a key technology required to enrich uranium to produce bomb grade materials for nuclear weapons. Any country that decides to purchase a nuclear plant for civilian power gets full access to what was being smuggled and the right to build their own facilities for enrichment.

That's the path Iran is following as they take the next step in the developing Middle East nuclear arms race.