-  CHAH KAH TIM writing in Today Online

Exploring Bukit Brown

Bukit Brown is more than a cemetery. It is symbolic of so many things at so many levels. The fact that it is one of the last few remaining patches of wilderness in an island state of barely 710 sq km in area, should multiply its worth, especially with the documented biodiversity value, but economic decisions seem to override this, to make way for a 8-lane highway across it.  

To many, Bukit Brown is a memory of their ancestry – it lays to rest 100,000 forefathers, many of whom helped shaped the nation. For a young country like Singapore, visible reminders of history are critical for current and future generations to connect with their past, their culture and their collective memories. As James Burke said, ” If you don’t know where you come from, you don’t know where you are.”

This article has two parts. An introduction is made by Cuifen, a Singaporean who shares her thoughts and feelings about Bukit Brown as her awareness of its beauty and importance grew since she first saw it.  The second part by Erika of SOS Bukit Brown gives an overview of the factual arguments in support of retaining Bukit Brown, and petitions that you can sign in its favour.

What Bukit Brown means to me

By Cuifen 

Nature at Bukit Brown

My first visit to Bukit Brown was in May of last year.  Bukit Brown is a cemetery, and it took me quite a long time to overcome my inertia to check out the place.  I finally did, though I didn’t know what to expect. I tagged  along  with Nature Society Singapore (NSS)  on one of their guided walks.  The place was totally abandoned.  Then it struck me how amidst the buried dead, life was  teeming. Majestic rain trees stretched out on all sides, filled with activity- ferns, orchids, climbers, insects, bats and birds. We were pleasantly surprised to see horses strolling by.  I remember thinking, “This place is so beautiful, and so close to MacRitchie reservoir. Yet MacRitchie is full of people, and Bukit Brown is so quiet. This feels like our little secret garden.”

Just as my curiosity was getting piqued, it started pouring. I couldn’t explore much more that day. I wanted to come back…

And return I did, not once, not twice, but at least 10 times – sometimes with a guided tour, sometimes with a few friends exploring the place on our own.

Through various walks, I learnt that this is home to many uncommon plants and birds. Some are forest species or species that are only found in maturing secondary forest areas, indicating some colonisation of species from the neighbouring MacRitchie forest. Dr Ho, a bird expert of NSS shared with us that Bukit Brown, being a large patch of greenery just next to MacRitchie was a likely stepping stone for forest birds to fly to other forested areas of Southern Singapore, including the Southern Ridges and Labrador Nature Reserve.

Enjoying Bukit Brown

Each time I went to Bukit Brown, I’d observe how other ordinary people were enjoying the space.  Some came to enjoy the scenery.  At some places the view is simply breathtaking, with valleys in the foreground and the tall forest trees of MacRitchie in the background. Some came to jog or cycle with their family and friends.  Yet others came to appreciate the area’s historical, cultural and spiritual aspects. And there are others still, like Raymond and Claire (of All things Bukit Brown blog)  who dedicate their free time to locating and cleaning graves of pioneers unrelated to them, simply because of their passion for heritage.

I remember my shock on reading the news that the government had plans to build an 8-lane highway right across Bukit Brown, to ease the congestion off Lornie Road. The government had, out of goodwill, funded a documentation project headed by the Singapore Heritage Society, for graves that would be directly impacted by the construction.

Questions were racing through my mind. How could the government do this? Have they consulted the public? Have they considered all the environmental and societal issues before making the decision? Do we even need an additional highway? Surely there are alternatives. Can we allow something to disappear forever, when we are only just beginning to discover its value?

A sense of urgency overcame me. I had to do more. Time is short. But what can I do as an individual?

In January 2012, Raymond and Claire had organised an informal training session for guides, focusing on the historical and cultural aspects of Bukit Brown. It was  the most valuable course I had ever taken. I had difficulty reading Chinese characters on the graves, but with Raymond’s patient assistance, I improved. For once, I understood that there’s a lot one can learn about a place’s history by reading the tombs, and connecting the dots together.  It allowed me to get a clearer grasp of Singapore’s history in its early days. It helped me connect with it in a much more profound way than through my textbooks when I was at school. For example, I learnt there was a municipality next to Bukit Brown in the late 1910s. The town was filled with people of all backgrounds, and the municipality commissioners decided to buy over the area from the Hokkien clan, to ensure sufficient burial grounds for ordinary people.

Heritage Guide Training

I found the courage to initiate walks. I invited various friends to Bukit Brown with me as their guide. It has been an amazing experience for me as most of my friends are unsure of what to expect, except what they see in my photos on facebook. They go away happy that they have seen another side of Singapore that is not on the tourist map.

I come back today feeling a sense of fulfilment after a morning of exploration at Bukit Brown. Armed with a GPS, I had assisted Von Bing, a plant expert with Nature Society Singapore (NSS) to mark the locations of interesting and rare plant species. Along the way, we occasionally ventured off the roads, to check out the tombs of prominent early pioneers, like Mr Cheang Hong Lim and Mr. Chew Boon Lay, after whom many public places are named in Singapore today.

As Jane Goodall once said, “Only if we understand can we care. Only if we care will we help. Only if we help shall they be saved.”

Can we save Bukit Brown? I think we can. I hope we can. But it means that we must all show we care for it enough. And to care, we must first understand what it means to all of us, inside our hearts.

Why Bukit Brown should be saved

By Erika of  SOS Bukit Brown

Located in the central part of Singapore off Lornie Road, Bukit Brown Cemetery is the largest Chinese cemetery outside of China. With a land area of 230 hectares, it is almost half the size of Sentosa Island (500 hectares).

Initially a burial ground for the Ong clan, the land was acquired by the government and officially opened in 1922 as a cemetery for the Chinese community. The oldest grave dates back to 1833 while the largest tomb covers an area equivalent to ten 3-bedroom Housing Development Board (HDB) flats.

Today, Bukit Brown has approximately 100,000 graves and is the last remaining cemetery of its kind in Singapore. Closed for burial since 1973, the area has become a verdant woodland much loved by hikers, runners, horse riders and bird watchers for its beauty and serenity.

Developments

In May 2011, the government announced that Bukit Brown would eventually make way for housing. In September 2011, they announced plans to build an 8-lane highway through the cemetery to alleviate the peak hour traffic congestion along nearby Lornie Road and the Pan Island Expressway (PIE). Meanwhile, anticipating future developments, a shell station for a future Bukit Brown train stop has been constructed at the edge of the cemetery.

Issues

Civil society groups that oppose the authorities’ plans stress that Bukit Brown’s destruction is unnecessary. They have raised several concerns, with the main ones as follows:

1. There are alternatives to easing the Lornie Road congestion without having to build a destructive new road. In its position paper on Bukit Brown, the Nature Society offers suggestions for dealing with the traffic problem, including the expansion of existing roads in the area. There are also concerns that the new road could inadvertently exacerbate traffic woes by creating additional bottlenecks along other sections of the PIE.
2. As part of its nation-building efforts, Singapore has to value and preserve important heritage sites, especially since many have already been lost. Bukit Brown, home to the remains of pioneer Singaporeans from all walks of life, can play a significant part in local efforts to evolve a unique Singapore Story.
3. In light of growing environmental awareness about climate change, Singapore should step up efforts to protect existing greenery. Singaporeans are already experiencing the effects of warmer temperatures and increased flooding, and the clearing of land in green areas like Bukit Brown could worsen these problems.

Conclusion

In addition to offering alternative solutions to the Lornie Road problem, civil society groups are recommending that Bukit Brown be gazetted as a heritage park for public enjoyment. And if Bukit Brown must be developed, then a comprehensive impact assessment ought to be conducted first. As the Nature Society puts it, “We should not be in a hurry to build the expressway – given that so much is at stake at Bukit Brown, which once destroyed cannot be resurrected.”

Action

To learn more about Bukit Brown Cemetery, visit Bukit Brown.com

Read the position papers of Nature Society and Singapore Heritage Society

Join Save Bukit Brown Cemetery – the roots of our nation on Facebook 

To download and sign a petition to save Bukit Brown, click here.

Pictures Courtesy: Cuifen 

Further links you may be interested in:

The Online Citizen:  Sorry to hear Tan Chuan Jin’s priorities

Wild Singapore: Hope springs eternal 

Today Online: Important not to trivialise Bukit Brown debate 

Share/Save

After several years of scientific and public debates it is reported that China will not commercialise genetically modified (GM) staple food crops such as rice and wheat for the next 5 to 10 years. The widely read Economic Observer, a financial weekly publication, citing a source close to the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) confirmed this move in its 23 September 2011 issue: see Item 1 below.

Photo Courtesy: Cifor.org

This seems to be in line with the increased caution over GM technology that has reached the highest level of the government. At the Fourth International Biosafety Workshop in Beijing in April 2011 co-organised by several Chinese scientific organisations, a senior official of the Ministry of Environment in his opening speech said that Prime Minister Wen Jiabao has called for more caution on GMOs.

Uncertainty about the viability of the current GM technology is also raised as a key reason. The Economic Observer states that according to public reports, the GM rice Bt Shanyou 63 can increase yield by 8%. But the source person said that currently the GM seeds bred by domestic experts do not have “yield-increasing genes”. Because the GM crop is pest resistant, the “increased yieldt” is in fact the savings from pesticides cost counted as yield. It should be noted that Shanyou 63 was first developed in 1981 by a team of scientists at the Fujian Provincial Institute of Agricultural Science.

The policy decision not to commercialise GM rice will be reflected in the “Modern agricultural crop seed industry development Plan (2011-2020)” to be released this year. The plan is based on the 18 April report of the State Council (the Cabinet equivalent in China) titled “Views on accelerating the development of modern crop seed industry”. Interestingly, from the Economic Observer article it appears that GM is only briefly mentioned twice.

The exception that is under consideration for commercial planting is GM corn, and according to the Economic Observer article this is driven by the fact that corn imports are increasing rapidly and of the two varieties most widely grown, one variety developed domestically (not GM) may be facing new pests after several years of “peaking” in its production. GM corn and soya are currently imported for livestock feed and food processing but not approved for commercial cultivation.

When production safety certificates were given in November 2009 for two GM rice varieties and one GM corn variety it triggered heated discussion and debate within the scientific community and the public on the environmental and human safety of GM crops and products. The biosafety assessment itself had taken more than 5 years with rice being the most sensitive as it is the country’s main staple food.  Each safety production certification is usually geographically circumscribed (China has 28 provinces and autonomous regions, and 4 metropolitan areas as well as 2 Special Administrative Regions) and not for the entire country. So for example, the GM rice certificate was for one province only.

However such certification does not mean that commercial cultivation is allowed. This is reiterated in the Global Times article of 30 September below that stated, “A spokesperson with the MOA’s GM product safety department told the People’s Daily in 2010 that just because GM products have received a safety certificate does not mean they can be commercialized, and strict regional and production tests are obligatory before products reach the public.” (see Item 2 below and TWN Biosafety Info Service of 21 January 2010: GE rice in China: A step closer to commercialization?  )

Meanwhile, Chen Xiaohua, a deputy MOA minister in a Global Times report of 30 September pledged to ensure safety of GM crops amid scientists’ appeals for caution in commercializing such products (see Item 2 below).

The same report quoted Yuan Longping, a famous agricultural scientist in China known as the “father of hybrid rice,” who has repeatedly urged the government to proceed cautiously with any move to commercialize GM crops. “One of the major features of GM crops is their ability to resist insects, but even scientists do not know whether such an ability in these crops will have any effect on human beings,” Yuan told Nanfang Daily on 29 September.

Xue Dayuan of the Nanjing Research Institute of Environmental Sciences and chief biodiversity scientist of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, told the Global Times that authorities need to set up effective risk-evaluation and management mechanisms before commercializing GM products as some GM seeds are already circulating in the country, stressing that more more needs to be done in terms of supervision and management of GM technology.

The State Council’s April report cited in the Economic Observer article emphasizes the need to further standardize GM agricultural crop safety evaluation.

The government’s move to suspend commercialisation of major GM staple food crops has been reported widely and is welcomed by various groups in China. Greenpeace Food and Agriculture campaigner Pan Wenjing said that, “This step is a milestone in the process to end all GE (genetically engineered) rice commercialization in China” adding that genetically engineered crops’ long-term risks on human health and the environmental are still unknown. Pan said that it has also been found that many of the GE rice lines in China are embedded with non-Chinese patents, which poses a huge risk on China’s food security should they become commercialized.

In its press release on 25 September Greenpeace called on the government to re-assess its GE policy and its massive GE investments, and instead invest more resources into modern ecological agriculture and other effective technologies. The goal should be to speed up the transition of China’s agriculture to a sustainable, ecological model, for the sake of protecting the environment, ensuring food safety, and securing the economic livelihood of farmers.

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

About the writer:

Chee Yoke Ling is a legal advisor to Third World Network, and coordinates the environmental programme of TWN. She received her LLB from the University of Malaya (Malaysia)and an LLM from Cambridge University (UK). After teaching public interest law courses at the University of Malaya, she went into full-time NGO work in 1989. She is actively involved in research and advocacy related to biotechnology and biosafety, intellectual property rights and community rights. She is also a consultant to the Malaysian Government on issues related to the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the WTO Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

This article appeared today in the Biosafety Information Service of Third World Network

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

Item 1

The report below is a rough translation of the 23 September 2011 issue of the Economic Observer, a widely read financial weekly publication in China.

Commercialization of genetically modified staple food: not to proceed for 5 years except for corn

by Jiang Yunzhang

A source close to the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), told the Economic Observer  that the government will not promote the commercialization of genetically modified rice and wheat for five to ten years.  A “Modern agricultural crop seed industry development plan (2011-2020)” to be released this year already reflects such a policy orientation.

The source said that there are two reasons for this delay in commercialization of genetically modified (GM) staple food crops: one is that there has been a lot of questioning about the safety of genetic modification from various sides; the other is based on the judgement that currently in China, GM staple food crop-related research, promotion, regulations, even later-stage business operation,etc. are not yet mature.

However, the same source also revealed that due to the drastic increase of demand for corn, putting pressure on national researves, corn breeding technology will be at a historical turning point. In the next 5-10 years, GM corn commercilization may be pushed forward when appropriate.

On 18 April the State Council released a report titled “Views on accelerating the development of modern crop seed industry”. In this report GM was mentioned only in two places in a brief manner: one is on the need to “push forward the implementation of the major project on cultivation of GM new varieties”; the other is to emphasize the need to further standardize “GM agricultural crop safety evaluation and cross-regional introduction of different varieties’ seeds.”

(Note: Approvals for planting under China’s regulatory framework are given for specific provinces and not nation-wide. See also the article below from Global Times: “Ministry seeks to ease GM food safety fears.)

Ma Shuping, deputy director of the MOA division on cultivation, publicly said that according to the requirements made by the State Council Report on the principles and orientation of the development of China’s seed industry, MOA will formulate and improve various policy documents related to future seed industry development, among which the most important one is to formulate a “modern agriculutral crop seed industry development plan (2011-2020)”. She furthered said that the Plan is the concretization and detailing of the State Council Report. In the plan, MOA will propose the main tasks and goals in the next 10 years of development of the the seed industry according to crop, variety, and region.

The Economic Observer learnt that since last year, MOA has been organizing experts to formulate the Plan. Now after many rounds of consultations and modifications, the Plan is basically finalized, and will be released within this year. The previously-mentioned source person close to the senior levels of MOA said to the Economic Observer, that the Plan proposes the main tasks and goals in the next 10 years’ development of the seed industry according to crop, variety, and region, but GM rice, wheat, corn, soybean,and other grain crops are NOT included.

This source person said domestically some experts have been involved in numerous controversies of the GM rice and corn varieties that received MOA biosafety certifcates in 2009. The focus of the controversy is that, many experts think these two GM rice and corn varieties have shortcomings with respect to breeding technology innovation based on which domestic companies will find great difficulty in coming up with commercially-viable GM rice and corn varieties within 5 years.

In the seminar on GM agricultural crops commercialization held by the State Council in May, breeding expert Tongpinya of the China Agricultural Science Insitute pointed out that Bt Shanyou 63, developed by Prof. Zhangqifa of  Huazhong Agricultural University is simply the “retired” variety (non-GM) Shanyou 63 injected with a pest resistant gene.

According to some sources, Shanyou 63 (a hybrid rice variety) was developed by the team led by breeding expert Xie HuaAn in Fujian Provincial Institute of Agricultual Science in 1981, and received national awards. A few years ago Shanyou 63 was entirely retired from the market.

According to public reports, Bt Shanyou 63 can increase yield by 8%. But this source person said that currently the GM seeds bred by domestic experts do not have “yield-increasing genes”. Because the GM crop is pest resistant, the “increased yield” is in fact the savings from pesticides cost counted as yield.

According to the predictions of agriculural departments, in the next 10 years and even longer, China’s rice, wheat and corn production will steadily increase. Demand for rice and wheat  is gradually decreasing but due to consumers’ demand for meat/egg/milk, demand for corn is getting higher. Officials in the field of agriculutral regulations have worries that in the future years Chinese corn will follow the example of soya bean.

(Note: The increase of soya bean imports is a matter of concern in the country.)?

~ According to statistics from the China Grain and Oil Information Centre, last year on soya bean, China’s reliance for imports was 78%. Also last year China became a net importer of corn, after years of being a net exporter. Since corn is a staple food in many countries, China’s imports have cause for alarm around the world.

~ According to the “National 12th five-year plan of the development of cultivation industry” that MOA released on 20 September, China must reach 100% self-sufficiency in rice, wheat and corn — the 3 main staple food crops. Most people working in the industry believe that the target is attainable for rice and wheat, but that self-sufficiency in corn will be very difficult to achieve.

Senior analyst JIaoshanwei from China Grain net (www.cngrain.com) said there are only two ways to acheive self-sufficiency of corn. One way is to greatly increase planted area, and secondly is to increase yield. The possibily of the first option basically can be ruled out judging from the realistic situation currently in the country. In the short term the possibility of breeding and promoting high-yield corn variety is also slim.

According to the Economic Observer’s investigation, currently the two corn varieties that are planted the most in the country are “Zhendan 958″ and “Xianyu 335″.  Zhendan 958 was developed by domestic experts in the 1990s. Xianyu 335 is the variety promoted in China by Dupont in 2004. Many breeding experts estimate that after many years of “peaking”, Zhendan 958 might very possibly suffer from new pests and thus be “retired” from the market rather early. By then domestic corn production can only rely on Xianyu 335. This lack of diversity for domestically-bred quality corn variety forms a significant threat to China’s future grain security.

~ The source person also said there is another realistic reason for GM corn commercialization to be possibly pushed foward rather fast as it is  different from rice and wheat, GM corn is mostly used as animal feed or primary material for food products, and very little is consumed directly by humans. Thus the government would face little obstruction when pushing the commercilization of GM corn.

~The source person also said that relevant parties will further strengthen research on GM corn technology, to come up with better GM corn varieties as soon as possible.

===============================================================

Item 2

Ministry seeks to ease GM food safety fears

By Liu Linlin (Global Times, China)

30 September 2011

The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) on Thursday pledged to ensure safety of genetically modified (GM) crops amid scientists’ appeals for caution in commercializing such products.

“We will develop GM technologies in strict accordance with relevant regulations and ensure the safety of GM products,” Chen Xiaohua, a deputy MOA minister, told reporters on Thursday responding to questions on the import of GM corn from the US.

“China will continue its development of GM crops because this is an important strategic move for the whole nation,” Chen said, adding that the ministry is drawing up plans to expand corn production to meet increasing domestic demand.

According to caixin.cn, China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Corporation imported 61,000 tons of GM corn in July 2010.

In November 2009, the MOA issued a production safety certificate to two varieties of GM rice and one of GM corn, the first such case in the country. The move sparked long-running debates about the safety of GM foods and their impact on the environment.

The three main issues surrounding GM foods according to the World Health Organization are their potential for provoking allergic reactions, transferring harmful genes to the human body and crossbreeding with other plants.

Yuan Longping, a famous agricultural scientist known as the “father of hybrid rice,” has repeatedly urged the government to proceed cautiously with any move to commercialize GM crops.

“One of the major features of GM crops is their ability to resist insects, but even scientists do not know whether such an ability in these crops will have any effect on human beings,” the Nanfang Daily quoted Yuan as saying on Thursday.

“So far scientists have only conducted tests on animals, which does not rule out risks for humans in the long term,” he said, adding that crops that have been genetically modified to increase production might be safe.

However, Gu Xiulin, a professor with Yunnan University of Finance and Economics who studies the impact of GM crops, noted that aside from health concerns GM foods may not even help increase production.

“Western studies found that in some cases, insects and weeds became resistant to GM crops’ ability to kill them, thus affecting production. There are also reports that GM foods could cause infertility in humans,” Gu said.

“More alarming is that some GM foods or other commodities made from GM products have already reached the domestic market. For example, about 20 percent of corn grown in China is genetically modified,” Gu said, adding that the government should adopt a more vigilant attitude toward the technology.

A spokesperson with the MOA’s GM product safety department told the People’s Daily in 2010 that just because GM products have received a safety certificate does not mean they can be commercialized, and strict regional and production tests are obligatory before products reach the public.

The GM organisms, also known as ‘transgenic’ organisms, were developed in the 1970s. At present, genetically modified crops are grown on 134 million hectares of land worldwide.

US farmers adopted genetically engineered crops widely since their commercial introduction in 1996, notwithstanding uncertainty about consumer acceptance and economic and environmental impacts, the US Department of Agriculture said in a statement.

Currently, commercialized GM crops in the US include soy, cotton, canola, corn, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini and yellow squash, and sugar beets.

In Canada, four GM crops are under cultivation: corn, canola, soy and white sugar beet. The EU is much more cautious about the technology and has issued a series of bans on such products, the latest of which banned GM-tainted food from general sale earlier this month.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine reported in 2009 that several animal studies indicated serious health risks associated with GM foods, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.

The academy asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.

Xue Dayuan, an expert on transgenosis at the Nanjing Research Institute of Environmental Sciences, told the Global Times that authorities need to set up effective risk-evaluation and management mechanisms before commercializing GM products as some GM seeds are already circulating in the country.

“It is true that the GM technology is crucial for China’s agricultural development, but compared with advances in the technology, more needs to be done in terms of supervision and management,” Xue said.

Citing an MOA insider, the Shenzhen Economic Daily reported that authorities would slow down its GM crops development over the next decade, especially for GM rice, wheat and soybeans, but corn might be an exception.

(Zhu Shanshan contributed to this story.)

Further Links You May Be Interested In:

EWTT:  Lim Li Ching: GMO Free
EWTT:  India’s GM Bill: Anti-people, Anti-nature
EWTT: Go GM Free in Australia
EWTT:  Better labelling of GM Food in Singapore essential
EWTT: Dr Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development
EWTT: Dr Mira Shiva: Health Effects of GM Food

Share/Save

Members of an indigenous tribe in Borneo lost a case in Malaysia’s top court Thursday challenging the state’s seizure of land to build a massive dam.

The verdict capped a decade-long legal struggle by a group of villagers who claim authorities in Malaysia’s eastern Sarawak state unlawfully wrested away land occupied by their ancestors for generations.

Land rights are a key concern for Malaysia’s indigenous people, many of whom say they have been pushed from their homes with insufficient compensation by state governments to make way for development.

The Federal Court dismissed an appeal by tribal villagers who said the Sarawak administration violated their constitutional rights by taking over land in the late 1990s to construct the Bakun Dam, a 7 billion ringgit ($2.3 billion) hydroelectric project that created reservoir roughly the size of Singapore.

Read more here

“The Bakun Dam triggered wide criticism from the start from environmentalists because it displaced thousands of people and flooded an area of at least 260 square miles (680 square kilometers) ” according to Seattle Times.

Sarawak Report.org, a citizen onlooker group, concerned by the situation in East Malaysia had earlier reported on sloppy construction practices. 

Share/Save

The following article contains two videos (Part 1 and 2) and the translation of the speech given by Dr. Tatsuhiko Kodama, Professor at the Research Centre for Advanced Science and Technology and Director, Radioisotope Centre, the University of Tokyo. He explains how the risk of radiation is long lasting, laments the inadequate response of the authorities to reduce radiation exposure of children, and suggests the use of technology to better monitor radiation levels in food, water and soil. 

He is an unsworn witness at the Committee of Health, Labour and Welfare, The House of Representatives, Japan.

This is Part 1 of his speech on July 27th, 2011

Video link here

I am Kodama, Director of Radioisotope Center, The University of Tokyo. I was very much surprised on March 15th. The University of Tokyo has 27 isotope facilities and our center is responsible for protection from radiation and decontamination of radioactive materials.

I myself am a physician and have been working on decontamination of radioactive materials at radiation facilities in the hospitals of University of Tokyo for past several decades.

First, we detected 5 micro Sv (per hour)* and reported it to Monbu-Kagaku-Sho (the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology of Japan). After that, in Tokyo, radiation became over 0.5 micro Sv (per hour). This went down once temporarily and, on March 21st, when we had rain in Tokyo and radiation increased to 0.2 micro Sv (per hour) and, since then, the level has been continuously high.

At that time, the Chief Cabinet Secretary Mr. Edano, told the Japanese people that there would be no immediate harm to the health. However I thought this would be a very serious problem because the current Radiation Hazard Prevention Act is established to handle and control a small amount of highly radioactive materials. For this, the total amount would not be the issue (since it is small) but the concentration of each radioactive material would be taken into account.
However in the case of Fukushima, 5 micro Sv (per hour) in the area less than 100 km, and 0.5 micro Sv (per hour) in the area less than 200 km from the nuclear power plant were detected. Furthermore, tea leafs in Ashigara and Shizuoka (more than 300 km away from the plant) were contaminated as you all may know.

When we think about Radiation Hazard Prevention in such a case, we need to take the total amount of radioactive materials into account. Then how much radioactive materials have been released from the plant? The government and TEPCO have not reported the total amount of the released radioactivity yet.

Then we estimated it. Based on quantity of heat, it is equivalent to 29.6 pieces of Hiroshima-type atomic bombs, and, based on the amount of uranium, it is equivalent to 20 pieces.

What is more frightening is that, based on our current knowledge, the residual amount of radioactivity will decrease to 1/1000 one year later in the case of the atomic bomb, but in the case of the nuclear power plant accident, the residual activity will decrease to only one-tenth one year later.
Namely, the accident in Fukushima, as well as that in Chernobyl, released radioactivity equivalent to dozens of atomic bombs and generated much more contaminants that stay long than that created by the atomic bomb. It is important to argue based on this estimate.

When we think about Radiation Hazard, we analyzed it from the view of Systems Biology. This approach works well when the total amount is small since we only need to consider the amount of radioactivity to which the person was exposed. However when the total amount is huge, we need to consider behaviors of particles.

Diffusion of particles is Nonlinear Science. It is most difficult calculation in the field of fluid mechanics. The nuclear fuel is something like “sands embedded in plastics”. When it is melted down, a large amount of fine particles are released in the air. The release of fine particles could cause a problem we recently encountered, namely the contamination of hay.

For instance, 57000 Bq in Fujiwara, Iwate, 17000 Bq in Osaki, Miyagi, 106000 Bq in Minami-Soma, Fukushima, 97000 Bq in Shirakawa, Fukushima, and 64000 Bq in Iwate (Iwaki?) were detected per kg hay. Thus, the radioactivity can not be plotted on concentric circles. How much and where those particles fell down were affected by the weather or by absorption of the particles by the materials.

I am going to Minami-Soma in Fukushima every week. Our center has worked on decontamination there seven times. When we first arrived, there was only one NaI radiation counter. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries sent a notification describing instruction for the food for cows on March 19th.

But that was the time when the Mayor of Minami-Soma made the now well-known appeal on the web asking for gasoline, food and water since the stocks of these items were almost gone. In such a situation, who could see and know the notification? Further, even if they could see it, the risk of contamination of hay was not mentioned on it. After they knew the notification, they bought expensive feed from foreign countries and fed the cows with it and given the spring water to cows, that is drinking water for themselves.

In this circumstance, what we need to do is to make it sure that complete measurements can be performed in the contaminated area. When we visited Minami-Soma in the end of May, only one Geiger counter was available there. Although, in the city hall, 20 personal Geiger counters were given from the US military, no one in the Education Committee of the City Hall could read the English instructions and use them. After we arrived there, we told them how to use them and then measurements with 20 Geiger counters became possible. This is what actually happened at that time.

As for the measurement of radioactivity in food, measuring instruments that use semiconductors are developed these days. They are not like germanium counters but can perform imaging. I do not understand why the government does not support to apply it for the measurements and to set up those in the entire country. Although three months have passed since the accident already, why even such simple things have not been done yet. This is outrageous and I am extremely upset about this situation.

Second, I have been a head of the antibody drug project of the Cabinet, and now am running a 3 billion Japanese yen project to perform advanced research. In the research, we label antibody drug with radioisotope and use it for cancer therapy. Namely, since my job is to inject radioisotopes to the human body, I am studying very hard on the issue of internal exposure to radiation.

Therefore I like to mention how internal exposure will affect. The major problem caused by internal exposure is generation of cancer. Internal exposure cuts DNA. When DNA exists as a double helix in a cell, DNA is rather stable. However, when cell division occurs, double helix is temporarily unfastened and DNA is duplicated, giving rise to four single-stranded DNAs. This structure is very sensitive to radiation. Because of this, radiation has a high risk to embryos in pregnant women, juveniles, and highly-proliferative cells of people of growing ages. Even for adults, highly-proliferative cells, such as hairs, bloods, and intestinal epithelium cells, are sensitive to radiation. These are ABC of Radiation Hazard.

I will mention what we know is caused by internal exposure. Not a single mutation can cause cancer. After a first hit was created by radiation, when a second event happened, a cancer would be generated. We call these changes driver mutations or passenger mutations. Anyway I like you to see the references below including cases for Chernobyl and cesium. The highest risk is alpha radiation.

I was surprised to hear that one professor of University of Tokyo said it is OK to drink plutonium. Alpha radiation is most dangerous. It is well known as thorotrast injury to us hepatologists. Although levels of internal exposure are calculated as units of Sv, I do not think it makes any sense at all. Iodine 131 is concentrated in the thyroid gland. Thorotrast is concentrated in the liver. Cesium is concentrated in the urothelium and bladder. Without examining each accumulation point, it will be useless to perform whole body scanning.

Thorotrast is a contrast medium. Since 1890, it had been used in Germany and, since 1930, it had been used in Japan.

This is Part 2 of his speech on July 27th, 2011

Video Link here

20 to 30 years later, it turned out to cause liver cancer in 25 to 30 % of the patients. It took 20 years to accumulate mutations necessary to cause the first cancer. Thorotrast generates alpha radiation and damages cells around it. The first gene to be hit is p53.

We knew DNA sequence of the human genome. The differences between two persons are about three million bases. Therefore it is meaningless if we treat different individuals in a same way. So-called personalized medicine is important. When we examine the effects of internal exposure, it is important to check which genes are damaged and what changes are generated in person to person.

In the case of thorotrast, it is proved that the p53 gene is disrupted in the first step, and the second and the third mutations are created during next 20 to 30 years, and finally the liver cancer and leukemia will occur.

Next is iodine 131. As you know, iodine is concentrated in the thyroid gland. Its accumulation is most evident in growing ages, especially in infants. The Ukrainian researchers reported that the thyroid cancer occurred frequently after the Chernobyl accident in 1991. But, Japanese and the American researchers argued on a journal Nature that they could not find any causality in their report. Because there are no data before 1986, it is claimed that there is no statistical significance. However, 20 years later it turned out to be statistically significant. Because 20 years later the peak observed in 1986 disappeared, the causality became evident without the past data. Thus, the epidemiological proof is very difficult and generally cannot prove it until all cases are over.

Therefore, a strategy to protect children now has to be totally different.
Dr. Shoji Fukushima in the National Bioassay Research Center is now working to find a chemical substance which is concentrated in the urinary tract system of people around Chernobyl. Dr. Fukushima collected more than 500 cases in cooperation with Ukrainian doctors. In the course of the operation for prostatic hypertrophy, they can get the sample of the bladder. After inspecting the bladder samples from the highly contaminated site, although radioactivity in the urine was not so high, 6Bq per liter, mutations in the p53 gene were frequently found. Besides, proliferative cystitis, a state of proliferative precancerosis, in which p38MAP kinase and NF kappa B were activated, were always associated. Thus, it is reported that cancer in the epithelium has been seen at a considerable high rate.

I also was surprised very much by a report that 2-13 Bq were detected in milk from seven mothers in Fukushima. Our Radioisotope Center are sending four staff members to Minami-Soma every week and working to help decontamination of Minami-Soma.

The problem that is happening in Minami-Soma is as follows. The distance from the nuclear power plant, for instance making a concentric circle whose radius is 20 km or 30 km, does not make any sense. It is necessary to measure the radioactivity in every kindergarten. Right now 1,700 children are going to schools in the 30 km zone from the 20 km zone by bus. However, in Minami-Soma, the radioactivity is high in the sea-side, and 70% of schools show relatively low radioactivity. In spite of this, children are moved forcibly by bus to schools that are located in the 30km zone near the Iidate village. It costs one million Japanese yen per day. Please stop such a thing as soon as possible.

What makes this situation is a problem of compensation. The money only goes to forced refuge. In a Committee of the House of Councilors, Ex-President of TEPCO, Mr. Shimizu, and the Minister of Economy Trade and Industry, Mr. Kaieda, gave such a speech. Please do not mix these. Please separate the problem of compensation from the issue of the children’s health immediately. I request you to make every possible effort to save and protect the children.

I ask you another request which I leaned from my experience in Fukushima. I want you to separate urgent decontamination from lasting decontamination clearly. We have extensively done urgent decontamination by ourselves. For example, a bottom of the slide, as you can see on a chart, is the place where a small child always touches. When rainwater drips down from the slide, it is concentrated here every time. When there is a tilt between the right and left sides, the raindrop will be concentrated and radiation will be 10 micro Sv (per hour) on only one side in the place where the environmental radioactivity is around 1 micro Sv (per hour). You must urgently decontaminate such a place immediately and vigorously.
Also, a place under a rain gutter where moss is growing is also a place where a kid often touches. When I wash such a place with a high pressure washing machine and remove the moss, the radioactivity decreases, 2 micro Sv to 0.5 micro Sv (per hour).

However, it is very difficult to make the radioactivity less than 0.5 micro Sv (per hour) in every place. This is because all of the buildings, the trees, and areas have been contaminated. It is very difficult to lower the radioactivity in the whole just by washing small parts.

Therefore, when we seriously consider decontamination, how many problems on earth do we need to solve and how much cost on earth do we need to pay? In the case of the itai-itai disease, the total area polluted with cadmium was about 3,000 hectares. By now, the government has spent 800 billion yen to decontaminate the area of 1,500 hectares. How much cost will be needed if the area is 1,000 times larger?

Therefore I want to urgently present the four (three?) proposals.

First, as a national policy, you should measure the radioactivities of food, the soil, and water. You should use the latest imaging machines which are available in Japan. Imaging with the semiconductor is simple. Improve the situation radically by making an assembly-line system using the latest imaging equipment. This is totally possible with the present Japanese technology.

Second, please urgently establish a new law to decrease the radiation exposure of children. All of what I am doing now are illegal. The current Radiation Hazard Prevention Act restricted the amount of radiation and nuclear species that can be handled in the radioisotope facilities. I currently employ all of 27 radioisotope centers of University of Tokyo and support decontamination at Minami-Soma, but most facilities are not allowed to use cesium. It is also illegal to carry radioactive materials by car. However, since I can not leave them to mothers and teachers, our team puts all contaminated materials in drum cans and takes them to Tokyo with us. Carrying them into University of Tokyo is illegal, everything is illegal. It is the Diet’s responsibility that caused such a situation. The isotope centers of National Universities in Japan have many newest machines including germanium detectors. If they are tied hand and foot by the law, how can they work to protect children with all their might. How can we protect children by using all of our power? This is due to a complete negligence by the Diet.

Third, as a national policy, develop technology to decontaminate the soil by gathering powers from all of the companies. Various chemical companies and radiation decontamination companies, for example, Toray, Kurita, Chiyoda technol, atox and Takenaka, have various know-how for decontamination of radioactive materials. The government should establish a decontamination research center by gathering those companies. Since this will cost tens of trillions of yen from public money, I really worry that it may become an inappropriate public work involving the right and money. There is no such margin if we consider the financial state of this country. How can we perform decontamination? When 70,000 people do evacuate, what is the Diet actually doing?

That is all I want to say.

English Translation from Hatena Diary.

(A comment from translators)
In the last part, Dr. Kodama told that he would request four things but only mentioned three. We guess the he just skipped one thing that is presumably related to precise (personalized and organ-specific) examination.

Explanations

*Sievert (Sv)

Further Links you may be interested in:

For Updates from Fukushima and Japan’s nuclear crisis, visit

Fukushima Update , Japan Nuke Crisis

Wikipedia: Acute Radiation Syndrome

Jonathon Porritt: Why George Monbiot is completely wrong on nuclear power

YouTube : Jan Beranek, part of Greenpeace team investigating Fukushima fallout says that some hotspots  where children play, have radiation up to 500-700 times what is normal.

Video link here

Share/Save

By Howard Lee

At the turn of this year, I interviewed Louis Ng, the Executive Director of the Animals Concerns and Research & Education Society (ACRES), and one of the questions was what ACRES plan to do for the coming year. Ng affirmed ACRES’s commitment to campaign for the release of the dolphins headed for Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) as part of its interactive dolphin spa programme.

On 27 May 2011, ACRES delivered on that promise with the launch of the ”Save the World’s Saddest Dolphins” campaign, which aims to create awareness about the plight of the dolphins through music videos, hence urging people to take action through their own video petitions.

Perhaps they might not really be the saddest dolphins in the world to date, but you can’t really doubt the ingenuity of the campaign in exploiting social media. You definitely will not doubt the tenacity of ACRES.

The campaign pivoted on the release of an undercover video of the remaining 25 dolphins (two have died in captivity) in Ocean Adventure marine park in Subic Bay, the Philippines. The filming was not without its challenges. “The main obstacle was getting caught doing it undercover but we managed to view the dolphins and successfully completed the investigations,” said Ng.

Video link here

The campaign goes beyond highlighting the plight of the dolphins in captivity, being trained and prepped for their eventual life at RWS. ACRES’s efforts are backed by a detailed report that outlines the errors and pitfalls of keeping wide-ranging wild animals in captivity, including the dangers associated with transmitting diseases to humans. It is not just an animal rights and environmental issue.

We must remember that these dolphins, including the two dolphins who died, are sentient individuals who only about a year ago swam freely in the vast open oceans. We need to also consider the impact of taking twenty-five dolphins from the wild in the Solomon Islands, on the survival of this species in Solomon Islands. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a leading authority on the environment and sustainable development and the largest global environmental network, had advised against the export of dolphins from Solomon Islands and urged countries to not allow the importation of any dolphins from the Solomon Islands

- Louis Ng (From his previous interview with The Online Citizen)

The main campaign music video features children and members of the public urging RWS to free the dolphins. Local and foreign bands have produced different covers of the campaign song. “Using social media and by approaching this issue more creatively, we will be able to engage the public more effectively and reach out to a wider audience,” said Ng.

“ACRES hope that members of the public will join ACRES in our mission to end this injustice. They may not love animals but they should feel a sense of injustice happening at our doorstep. The dolphins have endured being removed from their homes in the Solomon Islands and stressful transportation. Some of the dolphins watched their family members die, were subjected to living in small, rusty enclosures and endured a year of training sessions. The only thing in store for all of them now is the final stressful transportation to Singapore to entertain RWS guests.”

AsiaOne reported that “RWS, which runs Singapore’s first casino as well as the adjacent Universal Studios theme park, had no immediate reaction, saying it was studying the campaign’s allegations in detail.”

“ACRES hopes that RWS makes a moral decision and let the dolphins go. They believe strongly in CSR (corporate social responsibility) and marine protection and should walk the talk. They should note that even Chris Porter, who sold the wild-caught dolphins to RWS, called for RWS to ‘review its motivation for using these animals as a tourist draw’. He was concerned that ‘RWS is using the animals primarily to make money while telling the public that its aim is to educate the public on marine conservation.’”

But the message is meant not just for RWS, but also for our government, as our representative in the global community. Ng hopes that “the Singapore government will follow the progressive example set by other countries (such as Chile and Costa Rica) and ban the capture and display of dolphins, recognising that these animals belong in the vast open oceans.”

“They should also heed the advice given by Mexican Senator Jorge Legorreta Ordorica (Chairman, Committee of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries) who urged Singapore to consider Mexico’s experience and ‘the disturbing mortality’ of the animals when evaluating applications for the permits to import such dolphins,” Ng says.

With an extensive online campaign, “Save the World’s Saddest Dolphins” does have its non-cyberspace initiatives, as ACRES will also be embarking on a series of roadshows. The first roadshow was held at Far East Plaza (Level 2 Concourse) from 27 to 29 May 2011 at Far East Plaza, Level 2 Concourse.

To get involved:

• Visit the campaign website at www.saddestdolphins.com
• Support the campaign on Facebook
• Share the original campaign song with your friends
• Write a message or shoot a video about what you think of RWS’s dolphin programme and send it to ACRES
• Write directly to RWS

Video link here

About the Writer:

Howard Lee is a corporate communication professional and volunteers with a local marine conservation group. He is a freelance writer with The Online Citizen where this article first appeared.

Further links you may be interested in:

The Sunday Times: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as ‘non-human persons’

Save the Solomon Dolphins.org

Letter in 2008 to Mah Bow Tan, ex-Minister for National Development, Singapore from Mexican Senator Jorge Legorreta Ordorica (Chairman, Committee of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries) “urging you to consider our experiences and the disturbing mortality suffered by these animals when evaluating permits for live dolphin imports from Solomon Islands.”

Letter from Richard O’ Barry to Resorts World Sentosa on dolphins

The Straits Times: Free the Dolphins (Ric O Barry’s plea – full feature on The Sunday Times)

Update: Geordie Wilks from The Good Paper has given an excellent summary on the “Save the Dolphins” concert held on August 28th, 2011 at Speakers’ Corner, Singapore

Share/Save

Arctic Sea Ice Melt Photo: NRDC

Our earlier interview “Pen Hadow: Melting Arctic Sea Ice And How It Will Affect Asia” explained at ground level how the Arctic Sea ice is melting at an alarming rate, and the worrying consequences it has for Asia and the rest of the world – through rising sea levels and increasingly erratic weather patterns.

However, this seemed to be at best a superficial concern for the foreign ministers from the 8 Arctic Council member states – the US, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Russia who congregated in Nuuk, Greenland on Thursday, May 12th, 2011 to sign a treaty on international search-and-rescue in the Arctic.

According to Greenpeace USA:

“New revelations by the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks show how the scramble for resources in the Arctic is sparking military tension in the region – with NATO sources worried about the potential for armed conflict between the alliance and Russia.

The release of previously unpublished US embassy cables also shows the extent to which Russia is maneuvering to claim ownership over huge swathes of the Arctic, with one senior Moscow source revealing that a Russian explorer’s famous submarine expedition to plant a flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole was ordered by Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party.

One cable details the lengths to which the U.S. is going to carve out a strong position in Greenland, and the concerns Washington has over Chinese maneuvering on the Danish autonomous island.”

The following BBC news clip shows how major nations are taking strategic positions concerning possible resources such as oil and other precious mineral resources beneath the Arctic sea ice floor. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton mentions the likelihood of increased fishing, shipping and tourism as well as the ‘possibility’ of finding oil and gas reserves.
Video link here

The irony is that big oil is one of the important factors behind global warming – through direct emissions of CO2, as well as intense lobbying against firm action on climate change. They would again be the first to gain in the mad scramble for oil under the Arctic sea bed.

According to Greenpeace oil campaigner Ben Ayliffe:

“These latest Wikileaks revelations expose something profoundly concerning. Instead of seeing the melting of the Arctic ice cap as a spur to action on climate change, the leaders of the Arctic nations are instead investing in military hardware to fight for the oil beneath it. They’re preparing to fight to extract the very fossil fuels that caused the melting in the first place. It’s like pouring gasoline on a fire.”

Where there should be utter seriousness about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, greed is once again taking over. In all the talk about peak oil, the problem is not that the planet has too little oil, but that it has too much. If we were to burn all the known reserves of oil and coal, it would lead to a 4 to 8 fold increase in C02 levels.

We do not need new sources of oil, we need smarter ways to power the world. Newer trade routes propelling the same old industrial model of consumption and fuelled by the same old destructive energy sources will only lead to further environmental degradation in one of the last pristine frontiers of the planet, apart from exacerbating the biggest threat facing humanity – climate change.

Further links you may be interested in:

EWTT: Pen Hadow: Melting Arctic Sea Ice and How It Will Affect Asia

EWTT: Contraction & Convergence: An urgent global imperative to tackle Climate Change

Greenpeace: Fossil Fuels and Climate Protection

Share/Save

Here’s a video recording of some of the hightlights of the Earth Day celebrations at Bottle Tree Park on 22nd April 2011

From the previous post:

A lot of excitement is building up at Bottle Tree Park, Singapore owing to the hectic preparations being done by Tay Lai Hock, the Founder of Ground-Up Initiative and a team of volunteers for Earth Day on 22nd April 2011.

Here’s a prelude to the event:

The flyer to the event is as below. For more details do look at the Earth Day Singapore 2011 website



More information about Earth Day:

According to the Earth Day Network,

“The first Earth Day, on April 22, 1970, activated 20 million Americans from all walks of life and is widely credited with launching the modern environmental movement. The passage of the landmark Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and many other groundbreaking environmental laws soon followed. Growing out of the first Earth Day, Earth Day Network (EDN) works with over 22,000 partners in 192 countries to broaden, diversify and mobilize the environmental movement. More than 1 billion people now participate in Earth Day activities each year, making it the largest civic observance in the world.”

MNN: In honor of Earth Day’s 41st anniversary, MNN takes an animated look back at the past four decades of U.S. environmentalism in this video.

ABC: April 22nd 1970 First Earth Day

National Geographic: Earth Day Facts: When It Is, How It Began, What To Do

Share/Save

Jeremy Grantham

Jeremy Gratham, a top hedge fund manager at GMO has raised quite a few eyebrows. Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo (GMO) is a Boston-based asset management firm with more than US $107 billion under management as at December 2009.  According to Wikipedia, “Grantham is regarded as a highly knowledgeable investor in various stock, bond, and commodity markets, and is particularly noted for his prediction of various bubbles. He has been a vocal critic of various governmental responses to the Global Financial Crisis.”
 

Photo: Library-Quest

His quarterly newsletter which usually advises well heeled investors on all matters financial, has delivered on Page 7 a rather unexpected five minute summary on Global Warming.

And it’s hittingly concise and precise – especially coming from an investment banker.

Al Gore is often attacked for raising global warming alarm bells to prop up his “green” investments. Whatever his intentions are, Gratham’s five minute missive serves well to quell contrarian views and denial of climate change. Here goes:

Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes

(We’ve added notes and links for elucidation below the post)

1) The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, after at least several hundred thousand years of remaining within a constant range, started to rise with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It has increased by almost 40% and is rising each year. This is certain and straightforward. [A]

2) One of the properties of CO2 is that it creates a greenhouse effect and, all other things being equal, an increase in its concentration in the atmosphere causes the Earth’s temperature to rise. This is just physics. (The amount of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as methane, has also risen steeply since industrialization, which has added to the impact of higher CO2 levels.) [A]

3) Several other factors, like changes in solar output, have major influences on climate over millennia, but these effects have been observed and measured. They alone cannot explain the rise in the global temperature over the past 50 years.

4) The uncertainties arise when it comes to the interaction between greenhouse gases and other factors in the complicated climate system. It is impossible to be sure exactly how quickly or how much the temperature will rise. But, the past can be measured. The temperature has indeed steadily risen over the past century while greenhouse gas levels have increased. But the forecasts still range very widely for what will happen in the future, ranging from a small but still potentially harmful rise of 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit to a potentially disastrous level of +6 to +10 degrees Fahrenheit within this century. A warmer atmosphere melts glaciers and ice sheets, and causes global sea levels to rise. A warmer atmosphere also contains more energy and holds more water, changing the global occurrences of storms, floods, and other extreme weather events. [B]

5) Skeptics argue that this wide range of uncertainty about future temperature changes lowers the need to act: “Why spend money when you’re not certain?” But since the penalties can rise at an accelerating rate at the tail, a wider range implies a greater risk (and a greater expected value of the costs.) This is logically and mathematically rigorous and yet is still argued. [C]

6) Pascal asks the question: What is the expected value of a very small chance of an infinite loss? And, he answers, “Infinite.” In this example, what is the cost of lowering CO2 output and having the long-term effect of increasing CO2 turn out to be nominal? The cost appears to be equal to foregoing, once in your life, six months’ to one year’s global growth – 2% to 4% or less. The benefits, even with no warming, include: energy independence from the Middle East; more jobs, since wind and solar power and increased efficiency are more labor-intensive than another coal-fi red power plant; less pollution of streams and air; and an early leadership role for the U.S. in industries that will inevitably become important. [D]

Conversely, what are the costs of not acting on prevention when the results turn out to be serious: costs that may dwarf those for prevention; and probable political destabilization from droughts, famine, mass migrations, and even war. And, to Pascal’s real point, what might be the cost at the very extreme end of the distribution: definitely life changing, possibly life threatening.

7) The biggest cost of all from global warming is likely to be the accumulated loss of biodiversity. This features nowhere in economic cost-benefit analysis because, not surprisingly, it is hard to put a price on that which is priceless. [E]

8 ) A special word on the right-leaning think tanks: As libertarians, they abhor the need for government spending or even governmental leadership, which in their opinion is best left to private enterprise. In general, this may be an excellent idea. But global warming is a classic tragedy of the commons – seeking your own individual advantage, for once, does not lead to the common good, and the problem desperately needs government leadership and regulation. Sensing this, these think tanks have allowed their drive for desirable policy to trump science. Not a good idea.

9) Also, I should make a brief note to my own group – die hard contrarians.

Dear fellow contrarians, I know the majority is usually wrong in the behavioral jungle of the stock market. And Heaven knows I have seen the soft scientists who lead fi nance theory attempt to bully their way to a uniform acceptance of the bankrupt theory of rational expectations and market efficiency. But climate warming involves hard science. The two most prestigious bastions of hard science are the National Academy in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K., to which Isaac Newton and the rest of that huge 18th century cohort of brilliant scientists belonged. The presidents of both societies wrote a note recently, emphasizing the seriousness of the climate problem and that it was manmade. (See the attachment to last quarter’s Letter.) Both societies have also made full reports on behalf of their membership stating the same. Do we believe the whole elite of science is in a conspiracy? At some point in the development of a scientific truth, contrarians risk becoming flat earthers. [F]

10) Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for … what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs, and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? Most hard scientists hate themselves or their colleagues for being in the news. Being a climate scientist spokesman has already become a hindrance to an academic career, including tenure. I have a much simpler but plausible “conspiracy theory”: that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profi ts, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results. [G]

11) Why are we arguing the issue? Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy. Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments. In short, they are conservatives by training: never, ever risk overstating your ideas. The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert
propagandists to boot. They are also well funded. That smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths. We know that for certain now, yet those who caused this fatal delay have never been held accountable. The profits of the oil and coal industry make tobacco’s resources look like a rounding error. In some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same “experts” as the tobacco industry did! The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation – making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?” [H]

12) Almost no one wants to change. The long-established status quo is very comfortable, and we are used to its deficiencies. But for this problem we must change. This is never easy.

13) Almost everyone wants to hear good news. They want to believe that dangerous global warming is a hoax. They, therefore, desperately want to believe the skeptics. This is a problem for all of us.

Postscript
Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me. In a fast-moving field rife with treacherous politics, there will be many failures. Marketing a “climate” fund would be much easier than outperforming with it. [I]

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

Here are my Comments and links related to the above:

[A] Graph showing rise in average global temperatures and CO2 concentrations in the last thousand years, and a particularly steep rise in the last 150 years or so since the industrial revolution began.

[B] EWTT:  Impact of a Global Temperature rise of 4 deg C shows an interactive map by the Hadley Centre. It depicts the uneven impact of 4 deg C rise in different parts of the world. Now this is available in 3D form using Google Earth.

Here’s a mind map showing a summary of the impact of Climate Change (Click on the image for larger picture)

[C] Agreed, there is a wide range of uncertainty in the projections. But by not doing anything, the likely outcome is that we’ll simply end up in the higher range!
See Climate Progress : M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F  That kind of 5 deg C or higher warming can lead to a 1000 year irreversible catastrophe! As the article concludes “A few decades of prevention is worth 1000 years of misery”

Also check out Climate Scoreboard new tool (using the C-ROADS model created by Sustainability Institute, MIT, and Ventana Systems) which represents the long-term climate impacts (till 2100) of proposals which were under consideration in the Copenhagen negotiations to produce a global climate treaty

[D] There are many arguments against inaction
EWTT: High Stakes: The Economics of Climate Change in S.E.Asia – the documentary is based on a report by the Asian Development Bank. It shows for example that in Asia it will cost 6.7% of GDP by 2100 if we continue Business As Usual.

YouTube: Probably the most watched climate change video which logically argues against inaction :  The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See

[E] The irony is that investment in biodiversity can yield huge returns, not only economic returns from investment, but also in preserving local livelihoods and species.

EWTT: Challenges and Prospects of a Green Economy which mentions and links toTEEB : The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity report.

Science points to alarming rise in ocean acidification.  Bristol University cites Nature GeoScience research that Ocean Acidification is the fastest in 65 million years when a mass extinction of species occurred.

[F] This is most interesting – a “die-hard” contrarian hitting out against contrarianism in climate change, acknowledging the dangers of contrarianism for its own sake when it comes to climate science.

[G] Now, isn’t that so? Much of the climate change obfuscation is carried by fossil fuel lobbies, with funding from oil companies. Here’s an example from Guardian UK: US Oil Company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace.

[H] Climate Denial is big business. And as Jim Hoggan points out in this article, climate change denial costs US $500 billion in delayed action.
A wealth of information is available in Skeptical Science.com with every possible counterargument against climate change denialism.

[I] If Grantham is unclear about the future of global warming (albeit from an investment angle), it goes to show how despite all the evidence shown by climate science, political will is still lacking to show the clear direction ahead, be it for markets for carbon or for various investments in green technologies and sectors.

Other links you may be interested in:
EWTT:  Contraction & Convergence: An Urgent Global Imperative to Tackle Climate Change

Share/Save

GM Corn from Flickr Illuminating 9_11's

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) is the main regulatory body in Singapore, responsible for setting food safety and food labelling standards.

Last week on June 9th, 2010,  The Straits Times (Singapore’s national newspaper), published an interview with former chief, Dr. Ngiam Toh Tau entitled ”Ensuring Singaporeans don’t go hungry” which is reproduced here by WildSingapore News.

The interview discusses Singapore’s plans to become food resilient, by setting up a vast agri-zone in China’s Jilin city. Dr. Ngiam Toh Tau has actively lobbied to purchase farmland overseas, though unsuccesfully so far, in Argentina and Australia.

The specific part that I responded to was this:

Question by Straits Times interviewer:  Speculation is rife as to whether Singapore allows in genetically modified (GM) foods and why. Care to explain?

Dr. Ngiam Toh Tau: Yes, it does, mainly corn and soya beans and products made from them. I think most Singaporeans accept GM produce here is safe.

So far we have not seen any reports pointing to GM foods causing harm to human beings; in the United States, people have been eating such crops for 20 years.

My letter to the Straits Times that came out today in the papers is as follows (the portion in italics have been edited out)

I REFER to the interview with former Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority chief  Ngiam Tong Tau (‘Ensuring Singaporeans don’t go hungry’; June 9) and his remarks on genetically modified (GM) foods.

Dr Ngiam said he thinks most Singaporeans accept GM produce here is safe, ( perhaps he is referring to the survey done by 130 school students from 20 schools in Singapore who had interviewed heartlanders in 2009?  What was the sample size of the people surveyed and profiles? Isn’t it possible that a lack of knowledge of GM foods and insufficient labelling here, could be a reason for acceptability?) and added that so far, ‘we have not seen any reports pointing to GM foods causing harm to human beings; in the United States, people have been eating such crops for 20 years’.

There are sufficient studies to show that GM foods do cause harm. That is why 30 other countries around the world, which include Japan, Australia and all the European Union countries, have significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GM foods – because they are not considered proven safe. It is a different story in the US, as the approval for production of GM foods is based on studies conducted by the very firms which created them and profit from their sale.

India earlier this year put on hold the commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal (eggplant) due to overwhelming public concerns.

Nearly 90 per cent of US soya and 75 per cent of US corn are genetically modified. Singapore definitely needs better labelling of GM foods so that consumers can decide what is best for them.

Bhavani Prakash(Ms)

 

I had written on the same topic to The Straits Times last year entitled Super-Rice or Monster rice: Why GM crops can’t feed the world  where I argued against the creation of  genetically modified rice.

Certainly the lack of clear labelling standards for GM foods in Singapore, and in many parts of Asia is worrying.  Slowly but surely, efforts are being made to make consumers more aware. 

Greenpeace India had issued a Safe Food Guide: A Consumer’s Guide to GMO Free Food last year. It was quite an eye-opening study that revealed the presence of GM ingredients in many well known labels in India. Such guides need to be made available for every Asian country, so consumers can choose what is safe for their health and the health of the planet.

Further links you may be interested in:

EWTT: Super-Rice or Monster rice: Why GM crops can’t feed the world  (This post has a lot of reference links on GM foods that you may find useful)

EWTT: Safe Food Guide: A Consumer’s Guide to GMO Free Food

Share/Save

Ria Tan, who has been writing about marine biodiversity in Singapore for many years, shares her thoughts and  feelings here about this terrible oil spill reaching Chek Jawa, a marine reserve and wetland on the offshore Singapore island of Pulau Ubin.  The mudflats of Pulau Ubin have several different ecosystems, and plants and animal species that are no longer found in mainland Singapore. Despite this, Ria offers a message of hope, and that each one of us can help in some way.

Oil spill reaches Chek Jawa, Pulau Ubin, Singapore Photo: Hang Chong

A sense of deep helpless outrage is what I feel as the oil spill affects the marinelife on our shores. I just heard that the spill has hit Chek Jawa as well as Changi beach between Carpark 6 and Carpark 7.

It’s impossible to save all the creatures. What should a shore lover do about the situation?

It is wonderful to see large numbers of volunteers wanting to do something about the situation.

Hermit Crab mired in oil Photo: Ria Tan

But ‘cleaning’ sea creatures is almost impossible to do without stressing them. And once the oil clogs gills, the animals are probably doomed even if the oil is cleaned off externally. And if we want to ‘clean’ marine life, we need to use seawater. Freshwater kills marine life, in fact the mass deaths at Chek Jawa in 2007 was probably due to high freshwater input due to long and heavy rains in Johor.

The most beautiful and delicate of marine creatures are impossible to wash or relocate quickly: hard corals, sea anemones, sea fans. Some animals that don’t seem worthy of ‘saving’ such as worms, are actually among the important elements of the shore ecosystem, forming the base of the food chain. 

Peanut worms writhing or dead on the sand Photo: Ria Tan

So what is a shore lover to do?

In my opinion, we should document as much as we can. Focusing not just on the distress and death to marine life, but also the amazing diversity life on our shores (from worms to fishes, corals to seagrass) and how the spill is affecting them.

Share the photos and observations as widely as possible, and quickly.

In this way, perhaps more people will realise the following:

• That we do have wonderful marine life, even in unlikely places such as reclaimed shores and man-made seawalls.
• That these shores are precious and we should care for them.
• While we may be helpless in the face of the oil spill, there are MANY other threats to our shores that we CAN manage. We need to control such threats to make sure our shores are in the best of health, so that they can better survive incidents such as the oil spills.

• Existing threats include: litter than poison and kill our marine life. Abandoned driftnets and fish traps that perpetually kill until they are removed from the shore. Sedimentation that affects water quality and thus the health of our marine animals. Thoughtless construction and works on our shores. Uncontrolled collection of marine life on our shores. Careless recreational use of our shores. More about threats to our marine life.

Hopefully also, more people will realise:

• We need to protect more shores so that if some shores are hurt, other shores can act as a source of new animals which can settle on and eventually restore the damaged shores.
• We need to learn more about our shores. The more we know, the better we can care for them.

What other ways can we help?

National Parks Board staff and volunteers clean up Photo: Hang Chong

Besides documenting and sharing your photos and stories of the impact of the oil spill, I feel we can help by going down to sites that may be but are not yet affected. Keep an eye out for first signs of oil or distressed marine life. Alert the authorities if you do spot oil.

From NEA media release, 26 May, also on wildsingapore news:

Members of the public … can contact our 24-hour call centre at 1800-CALL NEA (2255632) , email: Contact_NEA@nea.gov.sg

I’m rather concussed from predawn low tide trips, so I’m not very eloquent in this post.

If you have other and better ideas about how we can make a long term difference for our shores and make the best of out this situation, please do leave a comment.

Thank you!

The Animals Concerns Research and Education Society(ACRES) is appealing for volunteers to help them.  Those interested can call the ACRES hotline at 9783-7782.  Volunteers are to bring containers to place the animals, trash bags and to wear boots.

Further links you may be interested in:

Latest information on the spill being posted on the Facebook Page : Singapore Changi East Oil Spill (25 May 2010)

Crude realities: Oil spill victims of Tanah Merah   Ria Tan shows photographs of the affected marine life at Tanah Merah, Changi.

Oil spill on Chek Jawa. What’s the impact?

While the scale of the pollution was ‘minor’, he (Prof. Ng, Director, Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research) cautioned that any amount could upset the fragile ecosystem in Chek Jawa.

With most of the oil patches along the wetlands cleaned up yesterday evening, he said the next step will be to monitor the long- term effects of the pollution. As this is the first major pollution in the area, it is unclear how the ecosystem there will react.

What is being done about the oil spill: 29th May

At East Coast Park, the oil-slicked sand had been largely cleared from the 7.2km of shoreline covered earlier this week. The 19.6 tonnes of contaminated sand that was shovelled up was sent to the Semakau landfill site.
Beyond the conventional methods, MPA experimented with imbiber beads which are usually used by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to clean up chemical spills on land. Imbiber beads are spherical plastic particles that absorb organic liquids. MPA said results have been encouraging and with support from SCDF, it is deploying more imbiber beads to supplement other efforts.

What is being done about the oil spill: 28th May

“The oil slick has hit Chek Jawa today at about 2pm, and Changi Beach between car parks 6 and 7. Some 700 metres are affected.

Oil has also hit Johor shores. A 1,600-metre long and 960-metre wide slick, was also 960 metres off Tanjung Ayam in Pengerang, Johor yesterday. By today, some of the oil that had turned into tar balls has also reached the shores of Tanjung Ayam and has spread further to Teluk Ramunia.”

What is being done about the oil spill: 27th May

“Out at sea, efforts were ramped up to clean up the initial 4 sq km area of oil slick from spreading inland. As part of the containment efforts, some 19 craft and 120 personnel used bio-degradable dispersants to break up the oil slick into smaller globules and some 3,300 metres of containment booms used to contain the spill.”

What is being done about the oil spill: 25th May

“The MT Bunga Kelana 3 spilled 2,500 metric tons of crude oil after a collision with the bulk carrier MV Waily at 6:03 a.m. today in the Singapore Strait, 13 kilometers southeast of Changi East, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore said in a statement. That’s equivalent to three days of leakage from BP Plc’s damaged well in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Share/Save