Sunday, September 20, 2020

Burning Policy and Native American Use of Fire

 After working on the issue of Native American fire use and it’s relation to prescribed burning policy for nearly two decades, there are three key elements that we all really need to understand:

1. Cultural Erasure. After Euro/American society engaged in the genocide of Indigenous Peoples, it (we) paved over the carefully tended landscapes where most of these people lived. The lands that were once burned to help support the needs of hundreds of cultures are now mostly under Walmart parking lots and corporate headquarter buildings. They are not the few wildlands we have left.

2. Nature Suppression. After exploiting ancient homelands to establish our own cities, we applied colonial techniques of natural resource exploitation to every square inch of land we could reach:
- turning/burning every accessible acre into vast, non-native landscapes filled with invasive weeds and grasses to support large populations of non-native livestock, causing further damage through overgrazing.

- the eradication of oak trees via state/federal programs, and the rich understories of sage scrub that one provided habitat in oak woodlands.

- clearcutting conifer forests, followed by grazing to arrest natural recovery (replaced now by herbicides), the naked land was filled with a checkerboard of countless artificial tree farms.

- eliminating all predators (wolves, mountain lions, bears, etc.) via federal programs in national parks and elsewhere, similar to programs to eliminate Native Americans.

3. A Different World. The current landscape and climate are far removed from where Indigenous Peoples developed their rich cultures. We now have:

- highly flammable, non-native weeds now filled every area disturbed by colonial activity.

- millions of people on the landscape igniting fires at a high-frequency unknown in the natural world.

- a climate racing towards increased dryness throughout California, threatening the loss of most native plant communities in the south, and dramatically reducing areas covered by forests in the north.

Attempting to apply past land management techniques on land that no longer exists is not logical.

So what do we have today? We have the same colonial system and its apologists pursuing yet another way to exploit what is left of Nature by doing what it does best – appropriating Indigenous culture to pursue economic gain and hiding the truth through strawman arguments.

Despite the fact that we have always gotten it wrong regarding land use policy and Nature, with the exception of National Parks, our enlarged egos have convinced us this time we’ve got it right – “our landscapes are unhealthy because of past fire suppression (the strawman), but we can fix it all by doing what we say Indigenous Peoples did (cultural appropriation) – burn it!”

This approach is now justifying one of the greatest threats to the natural environments we have ever faced in the West – the destruction of native habitat under the guise of fire protection. Millions of $ are now being allocated to burn, clear, log, and herbicide millions of acres of wild throughout the west, especially in California. And millions more are being promoted in a couple bills before Congress.

Personally, the scheduled destruction is overwhelming my soul. 

The land is burning because we have destroyed the climate.

The forests are burning because what natural forests once existed, few remain – they are now mostly dense, highly flammable tree farms created by corporations and facilitated by the US Forest Service.

People are dying and homes are burning because colonial financial interests have convinced nearly everyone that we need to log the forest and clear the chaparral far from nearly any community that is at actual risk – just like they justified the genocide of Indigenous Peoples, the damming of rivers, and the slaughter of predators.

Past fire suppression, dead trees, and leaves on the forest floor have nothing to do with it. But the colonial establishment, personified by the Trump administration and corporate Democrats, have sure done an excellent job convincing most everyone that it does.


To learn more about the use of fire by Native Americans, please see our webpage here:
https://californiachaparral. org/fire/native-americans/

 

To read why prescribed burns are the surest way to destroy the wild Nature we all love:
https://californiachaparral. org/threats/prescribed-fire/

 

To learn the truth about fires in forests:
https://californiachaparral. org/forest-fires/

 

For solutions Governor Newsom, the California State Legislature, the US Congress, and prescribed burning advocates refuse to properly consider and actually fund:
https://californiachaparral. org/fire/protecting-your-home/

 

Rick Halsey, Director

 California Chaparral Institute

PO Box 545
Escondido, CA 92033

www.californiachaparral.org

760-419-5760

Thursday, August 27, 2020

Early Closure of Operating Nuclear Power Stations

 


The owners of the Duane Arnold single-unit nuclear power plant in Iowa have decided to permanently close the reactor early after the massive derecho that swept through much of the Midwest recently did serious wind damage to the plant.
The hurricane-force wind also knocked down the grid, causing the Fukushima-style reactor to experience an automatic SCRAM. On-site emergency diesel generators were turned on to maintain essential safety systems to prevent a catastrophic meltdown.
Duane Arnold could not compete with more economical and reliable wind energy —Iowa’s single largest source of electricity at more than 10,000 megawatts — despite being licensed until 2034. Its early closure demonstrates that it cannot compete with severe weather, either.
The closure of the plant would be a piece of great news to many who consider the potential malfunction to be significant biological and economic risks.



Iowa is a windy state and vast space to create non-nuclear and none-fossil fuel sources for electric generation. My concern specifically is directed for several old nuclear power stations in Illinois.
Many of the operating nuclear power generators in Illinois are very close to population centers. I am hoping that they will be decommissioned before their operating-license is expired.
The economic-social impacts for the closure of these nuclear power stations are significant if the alternative replacement for the power generation is not included in the early-decommissioning option.

The cost of the upgrading of many of these plants would be high and may not be economically competitive with the closure option. Modern nuclear power designs would have lower risks of substantial accidents and are smaller in size.

Germany has chosen the option of closing all of its nuclear power stations. Germany has vowed to start decommissioning every nuclear power facility by the end of 2022. Operators began shutting down the Philippsburg nuclear power plant in southern Germany as the country has begun decommissioning all 17 of its atomic energy facilities by the end of 2022.

Should the US old Nuclear Power Stations choose an early closure?

Sunday, April 19, 2020

Discussion and Response to COVID-19 and prospect for survival

I hesitated to respond to questions identified in the following article "COVID-19 and prospect for survival":  But many people are asking similar questions. There are at least partial answers available. And that may (or may not) help to put things in perspective.

1. An individual who recovers from Covid-19 does have antibodies to it. That is being used now to detect and identify individuals who had the virus but had no symptoms. And some studies are now suggesting that as many as half of all infected individuals had no symptoms at all. That, and of those showing symptoms, 80% of them had mild disease. So the majority of people will recover and will have antibodies. Those antibodies will protect those individuals from reinfection. What isn't known is for how long. Immunity wears off. That's why you need booster shots for things like shingles and tetanus. So we don't know if the immunity to Covid-19 will be short lived or long term - we'll see. Maybe those individuals will need the immunizations. Maybe not.

In the meantime, because people who have recovered have antibodies, there are studies to see if their "convalescent serum" which has those antibodies in it could be transfused into sick patients to help them fight the virus. Trials are underway.

2. We do have drugs that treat (and in some cases can cure) some viruses - a lot of that research has come from studies in Hepatitis and AIDS research. And dozens of countries are currently engaged in testing many many different drugs to treat COVID-19. Recently Gilead was in the news with their antiviral drug - but there are many out there being developed. That can be done rather quickly. And that will buy us all some time. In the meantime, a vaccine will take longer - but again many countries are focused on developing a vaccine and that is also being "fast tracked"... but a vaccine is probably a year or so out...

3. An individual who has recovered from COVID-19 is not going to infect anyone else - there are currently no reports of a carrier state. However, remember that as many as half of all infected people have no symptoms - but until they develop antibodies, they are presumably capable of spreading the disease... So you could appear to be perfectly healthy and you could still be spreading COVID-19 to others.... Or you could get it from somebody who doesn't appear to be ill... You can't skip social distancing just because you feel okay or because you think someone else seems to be okay....

4. Yes COVID-19 has mutated - but not significantly... and so far at a very slow pace...

However people tend to hear and believe what they want to hear and what is convenient:

1. The original "social distancing" recommendation was to stay 6 feet apart for no more than 10 minutes. Have you seen the time limit mentioned by anyone since then? I haven't. And more recent recommendations are for 13 feet. With actual studies showing "spray" up to 27 feet. I haven't seen any revisions to the original official recommendation - I guess it isn't convenient...

2. Also, if you listened closely during the health reports, cloth face coverings are to reduce the chances that you will infect someone else - the cloth coverings do not protect you! The surgical masks and N95 masks are recommended only for health care workers and first responders - those masks do protect the wearer. But don't run out and buy masks. You also need disposable gloves. And a gown. And you need to know how to maintain a sterile field - which, unless you have medical training, you're going to mess up... So your best bet is to continue the best social distancing that you can achieve and self quarantine.... But, for my sake, wear the cloth mask if you do go out...

3. Flattening the curve. This means spreading out the cases so that the available medical and health services don't get overwhelmed all at once. However this also means that the duration of the pandemic is going to be spread out - the pandemic will last longer. And no one knows for sure if flattening the curve means fewer deaths - they may just be spread out over a longer time as well... but we hope that it means fewer deaths... we'll see...

4. Finally, no one knows how long this is going to last. Pandemics tend to go in waves. And many health officials are expecting a second wave around August. Overall the latest estimates that I've heard are that this will probably taper out over a year to a year and a half. That may mean that schools and some businesses will have to remain closed next year. I hope not - but, again, we'll see...

So be patient. Be vigilant. Continue the social distancing and self quarantine measures. Wash your hands and face. Wipe down surfaces. Etc. We'll get through this. And, if we pay attention, we'll all learn something.

Bruce J. Weimer, M.D.

Friday, April 17, 2020

COVID-19 and prospect for survival


Michael H. Momeni, PhD

I think that we don't have a road map for the future. The public reaction and the outcome for the next two years are uncertain.

In order to acquire immunity to the COVID-19, our immunological system would need the challenge, i.e. COVID-19 virus antigen. We were not born with the antibody to repel this virus. The response (or antibody‐mediated response) involves B cells that recognize antigens or pathogens that are circulating in the lymph or blood. We don't have specific inoculation for this virus. Does this mean that we all have to get exposed and survive to be immune? Does this mean that weaker people would die until a vaccine has been developed and the public would have been inoculated?
A proposed approach to nullify the body response to the COVID-19 would be an administration of anti-COVID-19 drugs. At present, such a drug does not exist or could ever be manufactured. The projected time for the development of the vaccine is reported to be a couple of years.
The native Americans paid a high price when they were exposed to old world diseases. But the stronger native Americans survived. The present generation of native Americans' biological responses to old diseases is very similar to other people. Would this also happen to all of us, all of us who live on this planet?
 I have asked myself the following questions:
1. Once an individual gets the COVID-19 and survives, would the created immunity make the individual resistant to a new infection with another mutated COVID-19? How long would the immunity continue before requiring a booster reinoculation?
2. Do we have drugs to cure any of the infections caused by any of the viral diseases? We have the vaccination to prevent infection for some of the viral diseases.  We still get cold and flu and suffer through it.  
3. Could a person infected with the COVID-19 and have survived the disease still capable to infect other people?
4. Has the COVID-19 mutated since it was discovered? Would a vaccine for an existing COVID-19 genome still function for the mutated virus?
It is not a national problem only, it is an international problem. The international effort would be needed to survive this new disease. This is not an optimistic outlook. It depresses me. I hope and wish I am wrong.




Comments