Category Archives: Commentary

Controlled Burn Proposal for Rocky Flats

Posted on by

Rocky Flats has made it back into the news because of a proposed controlled burn near where the plant produced plutonium and other parts for nuclear weapons. An article by Bruce Finley states that west Metro leaders oppose the burn “…where plutonium contamination created an environmental disaster.” My book, “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats:  Urban Myths Debunked,” puts the plutonium releases from Rocky Flats into context compared to the amount of plutonium added to the environment by atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. A 1974 State of Colorado report estimated total world releases of plutonium from testing of nuclear weapons to be between 9,000 and 15,000 pounds of plutonium that contaminated the entire world everything that lives on it. The total released from all routine operations and accidents from Rocky Flats was estimated to be between 2 and 25 ounces. I can’t be certain of Mr. Finley’s definition of what would constitute an “environmental disaster,” but I’d choose atmospheric testing to have been worse than Rocky Flats.

One critic who has a lengthy career of providing inflammatory comments about of Rocky Flats was quoted in Finley’s article as saying, “If plutonium is released, it would be in the form of tiny particles suspended in the air. These could be inhaled. Even a single particle could destroy someone’s health.” I’ll respond with quotes from my book. “Is it true that a tiny particle of plutonium will kill people? Sadly, it’s too late to avoid that outcome it that is true.” “All humans have billions or trillions of atoms of plutonium in their bodies.” Is it surprising that people are living longer despite the plutonium we’ve all inhaled? Continue reading →

Whaddya Mean “We” Kemosabe?

Posted on by

In a classic Mad Magazine cartoon (that I dimly recall), the Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by a horde of hostile Indian warriors. The Lone Ranger says to Tonto “what do we do, now?,” to which Tonto replies, “what you mean ‘we,’ kemosabe?”

As a long article in Slate.com says:
“Even if you’ve never heard or seen a single episode of Fran Striker’s early 20th-century creation The Lone Ranger—begun on the radio [in 1933], continued in books and on television, and … the big screen—the term kemosabe is likely familiar to you.”

There’s more interest in “kemosabe” than you’d expect – Word Detective, Native Arts, and a favorite of mine – The Straight Dope.

There are amusing suggestions. The word “tonto” means “fool” in Spanish*. “Some people have pointed out that kemosabe sounds a lot like the Spanish phrase ‘quien no sabe'” which means idiot, so the two characters are calling each other stupid over the decades. I suppose this could have happened by accident (or by some devious design), but it seems unlikely.

Various people have tried hard to reconcile the word with Native American languages, and even to assign Tonto to a tribe (which Striker never did – but it was 1933 and “Indian” may have been sufficient for an entertainment.)

We’ll never know, since creator Fran Striker didn’t record where he got the word. My bet is that it was entirely made-up. If so, it can only mean what an episode of the TV show claimed – Tonto tells the Lone Ranger that the word “mean trusty scout.” Any later attempts (that means you, 2013 film) to redefine the word must be rejected. You only get one shot to contribute to a venerable creation’s canon.

*Note: Apparently, when Lone Ranger episodes are presented in Spanish, the trusty scout’s companion is named “Toro”, which means “bull.”

Changing Your Mind is Hard

Posted on by

It’s hard for people – any of us – to admit being wrong. The more stridently you take a position in public, the harder it is to recant. Science is one field where changing your mind when the evidence requires it is applauded.

As Carl Sagan once said:
“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day.”

A few significant changes have occurred in my lifetime: plate tectonics replaced continental drift, an asteroid impact was accepted as finishing off most dinosaurs while birds were accepted as the last of the “avian dinosaurs”, and the Big Bang theory of cosmology replaced Steady State. There are many other examples.

It’s hard enough to admit to error in front of like-minded colleagues, so when you tackle a topic that is highly emotional, changing your mind may lose you a lot of friends. Because of this I want to commend Mark Lynas.

Lynas is a British author whose current focus is climate change. But in the 1990s he helped start the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement. In 2008, he was still “penning screeds” (his words) attacking the use of GMOs.

In 2013, he addressed the Oxford Farming Conference with a change of mind:
“I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologize for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.
As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.” See the full text of his talk here where he details why he changed his mind. (Updated url: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/ I wonder why it changed?)

Lynas has a new book out and many older titles still on Amazon, so a cynic might say controversy sells books. But – unless I find evidence to the contrary – I say, congratulations Mark Lynas. I hope that someday when I need it (and no doubt I will) I find in myself the integrity you’ve shown.

This blog has more posts about GMOs.

Avoiding Risk is Dangerous

Posted on by

Being a parent is a tough job, and the argument over how much to protect children is making it even tougher. The lead to an article by Jamie Siebrase titled “Turns out, risking too little might be the biggest risk of all,” made me smile. It says that Disney produces movies that open with parental death because they “get it.” “Parents—mothers especially—are a huge hindrance to fun creativity, adventure, exploration, and, well, everything ultimately resulting in personal growth.”

Hovering parents assure that no one touches their child unless they have had their hands sanitized. The children are “…strapped like racketeers to booster seats,” and on and on. The dangers faced by children aren’t new, but we are bombarded with round the clock reports of horrors that have occurred. That makes us want to be “responsible” by assuring our children are always protected. The result is that children don’t have fun and don’t develop the skill involved in taking calculated risks. Wil Richards, a “…former outdoor education professor…” writes that overprotecting children robs them of the opportunity learn and sets them up “…to fail spectacularly in later life.” They don’t learn that they will be required to stand up for themselves.

This is becoming a subject of much discussion and disagreement. Lisa Zamosky published a web article “Free Range Parenting” that describes how a columnist allowed her 9-year-old son ride the New York City subway alone. Her description of the decision led to “…a mix of accolades and accusations from parents everywhere.”

So how much risk should you allow your kid to take? I’m certainly no expert, but I’d guess that’s where life’s lessons learned on the way to becoming an adult come into play. Let them climb the tree but help them make judgments about which limb might break. You also need to be prepared to fend off those who observe your child having fun climbing a tree and accuse you of being an irresponsible parent.

 

Enlightened Self-Interest and Climate Change

Posted on by

earth climate changeThe Earth’s climates are changing. I’m an American. I’m currently “winning” in terms of climate, so change is likely to be bad for me. Efforts to mitigate the impacts will be important to me and to posterity. We can also reduce our ongoing contributions to the problem.

Huge international summits produce more media stories than useful action. The world carries too much political baggage from the age of European colonization and – especially for America – the Cold War. At climate conferences, westernized nations see attempts at revenge and emerging economies see ongoing imperialism. Talking is better than shooting, but we need many answers, tailored to specific problems or locations.

I prefer enlightened self-interest, so I was pleased to read that “plenty of entrepreneurs are not waiting for the diplomats. They are finding ways to cut carbon emissions and make money from doing it.” While some “carbon offsets” seem phony – a tree planted today can be cut down tomorrow – I like the idea of reducing greenhouse gases at the source.

“Methane is… a potent greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere – cow manure is ripe with it – but [on an Oregon dairy farm], the methane is captured and funneled into a red generator the size of a mini-bus. The generator burns it to make electricity. That electricity is sold back to the local power company. The farmers get paid.” To reject this idea and say we should get rid of the cows is to miss an opportunity.

But the manure to methane project has another source of income. “FarmPower makes additional money just for taking that methane out of circulation. For every ton of that methane they capture they earn a credit worth about five to $10. FarmPower then sells those credits to anyone who has to lower their own carbon emissions, say, a coal-fired power plant.”

America has used the “cap and trade” technique for many years, for example, to reduce sulfur-related smog. In the late 1970s, a refinery I worked for paved dirt roads around its plant to reduce dust generated by vehicles and thereby allow the refinery to put dust out its stack. (Don’t laugh at dust. Inhaled dust particles are directly linked to health problems.) Continue reading →

New Year’s Eve Possum Drop

Posted on by

We often post serious commentaries, but this isn’t one of those (unless you are a member of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals—PETA). I was alerted to this non-serious issue by a Rich Tosches editorial in  the Denver Post. He writes that he engaged in so much New Year “…over-the-top partying and so much wild and crazy hooting and hollering that many of the other residents of my assisted living center complained.” He then adds that what was missing was the lowering of an unattractive animal from a pole at midnight…in an Appalachian village in North Carolina.” The organizer of the possum drop stopped fighting PETA lawsuits that claimed the shy animal was left out in the cold and could also be “startled” by the fireworks and band. The organizer decided to put a dead possum or possum stew in the plexiglass box, but Tosches doesn’t report on the selected alternative. He does manage, as he often does, to close his editorial with comments that I found irritating.

I hope Tosches won’t be insulted that I found much of the editorial to be so silly that I checked to see whether there were other articles on the subject. Sure enough, David Zucchino has a confirmation. He adds that PETA claimed that even though the possums are released after the drop that “…they may die later of capture ‘myopathy,’ a cascading series of catastrophic physical reactions to stress or trauma.” Healthcommunities.com explains, “Skeletal muscle weakness is the hallmark of most myopathies.” I’ve failed at trying to imagine how a possum could become so frightened that it would develop muscle weakness and die.

This makes me want to look for something important for future commentaries.