Flying as a modern-day lottery -- Air France Flight 447 Passengers Lost the Lottery! Sigh!
by forensic blogger Danny Bloom
CYBERSPACE -- June 5, 2009
Flying is safe, very safe, according to industry statistics. But don't
ask the people who died on the ill-fated Air France Flight 447 about
statistics.
You might remember the news of the ill-fated flight of a Swissair jet
flying from New York to Geneva back in the 1990s, and also the news
reports about LAPA Flight 3142 that failed to take flight in
Argentina. Twelve years have passed since that Swissair flight, airline reservations are
still strong, the flying public hardly blinks and the sky's the limit.
Nothing changes much in the world of aviation and flying safety. It's
a gamble, every flight is a gamble but statistically, you stand to
win. The numbers are on the side of the living.
But there's a funny thing about the way plane crashes are reported in
the news media -- and the way the news is received and digested.
After any major crash, after the bold headlines and day-after
analyses, reality returns to the normality that is life.
People who are neurotically afraid to fly (let's call them "fearful
flyers") feel justified in thinking the way they do. They often clip
out front-page newspaper stories and put them in a mental scrapbook.
"See," they tell everyone who listens, " flying is not safe, never
was, never will be. How much more evidence do you need?"
Psychiatrists report this all the time. After every major crash that
makes international headlines, the fearful flyers among us (and there
are many; 30 million in the US, maybe three million in Taiwan) say: "I
told you so."
And they add, just so we won't forget: "I am not neurotic. You think
flying is safe? Go ahead and fly, sucker!"
People who are not afraid to fly have another survival mechanism, call
it a defense mechanism. They see the news on TV and read the stories
in the press and say: "Too bad, a real tragedy. But it was just fate,
an ill-fated flight. The planes I fly on will never crash. I am
indestructible, I am a realist."
And they will fly, again and again. Because flying is safe and
statistically you've got a better chance of arriving on time and in
perfect condition (minus the jet lag, of course, or the boozy
hangover) than the poor blokes in urban traffic jams below. Every Web
site devoted to fear of flying will tell you so. And statistics don't
lie.
There's a third group who find plane crashes reassuring. These are the
people who put their faith in God or Buddha or Allah.
"See, " they say to anyone who will listen, "God works in mysterious
ways. When your time comes, your time comes. God is just calling you
back early. The pearly gates await you. You have nothing to fear but
fear itself. Trust in the Lord and the Kingdom of Heaven shall be
thine."
It works, too. Every group finds something in plane crashes, food for
thought, fuel for fiery arguments. And they are all right.
And then there are the plane spotters, those devilish plane buffs who
stand near runway approaches at major airports around the world and
take comfort in watching the slow, graceful approaches of jetliners
and prop planes as they jockey for landing rights and runway reunions.
There are lots of them out there, every day, everywhere. Fascinated by
all kinds of aircraft, they come armed with cameras and a sense of
mission. Plane crashes don't stop them, grizzly TV images don't stop
them, even typhoons don't stop them.
The final word on plane crashes? There is no final word. The world
returns to normal, very quickly, and everyone retreats to their
private vision of heaven and hell. The bell rings. Classes resume in
the School of Hard Landings and nobody's the wiser.
Except insurance companies. They learn the most from these things.
In Paris, there will be a thorough investigation, a report, assigning
of blame. Funerals for the dead, psychiatric counselling for the
families.
But nothing will change. Pilots will still attempt to land their
magnificent flying machines in stormy weather, corporations will still
put emphasis on the bottom line, passengers will still put their trust
in God, amazing technology that enables them to be god-like for a few
hours in the air, and fate.
Flying is safe, very safe, according to industry statistics. But don't
ask the survivors of Flight 447 about statistics. They lost the
lottery.
After every accident, there is hand-wringing, assigning of blame,
officials who humbly take responsibility and resign. Newspapers
dutifully print obituaries, TV news segments will show us the grieving
families, over and over again.
It doesn't matter if it's TWA Flight 800 over Long Island or the
Lockerbie explosion over Scotland or even the KAL 007 shootdown over
the Sea of Japan or Air France Flight 447.
Planes fly, planes explode, planes crash. Every flight is a race
against time, against lift and stall, against the elements. Is flying
safe? Sure.
One wonders if anything has been learned. Flying is still a lottery in
which most of us come out as winners. But for some modern travelers,
the flying is over; they lost the lottery and died unspeakable deaths.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Polar cities and Earth 2100 on ABC-TV: Why we need to take action now!
Pam Funston writes on SUNNY WAY blog:
re:
"Earth 2100". ....on ABC - TV recently .....
it showed at the beginning, all the warnings and even a global summit to try to correct/prevent the inevitable if things continue environmentally as they are..and the leaders all went home not coming to any conclusion.
And then things continued to go downhill, until there was no communication, no cell towers, Internet, food, beaches, transportation … just of course the worst case scenario. .....BUT the thing is, the film went over the last part of the movie in a different scenario, with the changes that would happen for good if everyone worked right now together, globally. And the end was how great everything was, or could be, on our Earth.
It ended with a statement that there is a global summit in Denmark this year to discuss the issues we need to work on NOW, and how important it will be. so, yeah, it was a negative picture/scenario to begin with, but really was thought provoking at what must be done.
It told a story of a young 7 year old girl named Lucy and her life through her late seventies, in the worst case scenario, so it was like a story…but then the best case scenario for our Earth if things were taken seriously, and dealt with.
I just thought it was a good film to show how individually and collectively we, globally, need to take care of this earth, and the US will make decisions that will affect the whole world in this area. so, like in the Sunny Way, it can work together, because we CAN see the future as full of possibilities that we can impact through our actions right now. I really enjoyed reading what Megan Dietz had to say, and I think group discussions like this
would be truly inspiring and thought-provoking."
re:
"Earth 2100". ....on ABC - TV recently .....
it showed at the beginning, all the warnings and even a global summit to try to correct/prevent the inevitable if things continue environmentally as they are..and the leaders all went home not coming to any conclusion.
And then things continued to go downhill, until there was no communication, no cell towers, Internet, food, beaches, transportation … just of course the worst case scenario. .....BUT the thing is, the film went over the last part of the movie in a different scenario, with the changes that would happen for good if everyone worked right now together, globally. And the end was how great everything was, or could be, on our Earth.
It ended with a statement that there is a global summit in Denmark this year to discuss the issues we need to work on NOW, and how important it will be. so, yeah, it was a negative picture/scenario to begin with, but really was thought provoking at what must be done.
It told a story of a young 7 year old girl named Lucy and her life through her late seventies, in the worst case scenario, so it was like a story…but then the best case scenario for our Earth if things were taken seriously, and dealt with.
I just thought it was a good film to show how individually and collectively we, globally, need to take care of this earth, and the US will make decisions that will affect the whole world in this area. so, like in the Sunny Way, it can work together, because we CAN see the future as full of possibilities that we can impact through our actions right now. I really enjoyed reading what Megan Dietz had to say, and I think group discussions like this
would be truly inspiring and thought-provoking."
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
polar cities and a preliminary sketch of Underground Desert Living Unit by Jennifer Daniels
Polar cities and a preliminary sketch of Underground Desert Living Unit by Jennifer Daniels
The idea for the Underground Desert Living Unit (UDLU) was inspired after reading three articles while doing research for 13.7 Billion Years, an "environmental armchair activist" blog that I started in March 2008.
The first was an an article by Alister Doyle titled "Exotic climate study sees refugees in Antarctica," in which the Reuters environment correspondent wrote about the release of "Climate Futures," a 76-page study written by HP Labs, the exploratory research arm of Hewlett-Packard, and Forum for the Future, a London-based non-profit dedicated to sustainable development.
The researchers predict that global warming will create "environmental refugees" -- people made migrant by the effects of climate change.
Current human habitats will become too dry for farming or unbearably hot or even submerged underwater from sea level rises due to the melting of polar ice.
The second article was a ScienceDaily article entitled, "Global Warming Threatens Australia's Iconic Kangaroos," which refers to current predictive climate models showing up to a six-degree rise in Australia's temperature by 2070.
One of the most devastating effects of this increased heat will be the loss of surface water.
Large swaths of Australia will become dry and parched.
The third article was a RushPRnews article, "Top British scientist says New Zealand should become “Lifeboat” for global warming survivors," about James Lovelock's recent interview with Radio New Zealand, in which the 89 year-old climatologist -- one of the first to warn about the dangers of climate change -- says that it's too late to stop the temperature rise.
"I think the role of New Zealand, similar to that of the UK and other island nations, is to be a lifeboat because the world may get almost intolerable during the coming century," says Lovelock.
"You've seen it happening in Australia already: Desert is spreading and things just won't grow, he notes. "The island nations like New Zealand will be spared that kind of damage."
"Trying to stop global warming," Lovelock says matter-of-factly, "is almost a certain waste of time."
The Lovelock article was written by Danny Bloom, a Taiwan-based "green media activist" and creator behind Polar Cities, a compelling idea he devised in 2006 for building new cities near the planets poles that would be populated by "survivors of future global warming events."
According to a Mongabay blog posting, Bloom doesn't believe that people will actually have to live in these "polar cities," but he has been using the concept and computer-rendered drawings (by Taiwanese artist Deng Cheng-hong) to help raise awareness about the dangers of climate change.
Thinking about the possible eventual loss of fertile land, the growth of desert climates and creation of "global warming refugees" recalled my own desire to build a house in the desert when I first visited California's Mojave Desert several years ago.
The idea back then was to build a biomorphic living space based on cell structure as a way to emulate nature.
All of the rooms would be circular -- there would be no corners.
Dubbed "Circle House," the original design was based on a water molecule: one large oxygen atom attached to two smaller hydrogen atoms.
From above, Circle House would look like a bunch of interconnected water molecules sitting on top of the flat desert.
The concept of the Underground Desert Living Unit (UDLU) takes the molecular design elements of Circle House and moves it underground, envisioning a localized solution for "global warming refugees," allowing them to stay in their original region.
UDLUs could be easily interconnected, allowing flexibility and community growth, leaving a wind energy generator, a solar energy generator, a solar-powered greenhouse and an air purifier system above ground.
The idea of UDLU is to give an option to the millions of possible "global warming refugees."
We don't have to go to New Zealand or the polar caps.
We can move underground, underneath our newly-born desert landscapes.
This is just the beginning of an idea, which will now create a series of problems that must be solved.
How will UDLUs be built? What will they be made of? How will energy be generated? How will food be grown in these newly-formed arid regions? How will water will be accessed?
What will living underground do to us physically or psychologically? What other problems could arise? Could UDLUs help displaced wild animals, like kangaroos?
I hope that the Underground Desert Living Research Institute (UDLRI) will promote the research and development of an inexpensive, flexible, easily constructed, sustainable, eco-friendly Underground Desert Living Unit (UDLU).
In this effort, the UDLRI will collect, share and analyze information about global warming, green architecture and sustainable technologies.
At the very least, UDLRI will be a record of my own investigations into the usability, feasibility and possibility of the UDLU.
Posted by Reynard Loki
James Lovelock approves of polar cities idea .....
A friend who recently spoke with Dr Lovelock face to face tells me:
"I did ask Lovelock about you, Danny, and the polar cities. He
remembered your emails/ideas and said you were right and that we'd
need something like that sooner than we think...."
June 4, 2009
"I did ask Lovelock about you, Danny, and the polar cities. He
remembered your emails/ideas and said you were right and that we'd
need something like that sooner than we think...."
June 4, 2009
james lovelock and polar cities
What you describe is quite depressing. Do you have any sense of hope?
Even the best climatologists will tell you in private that CO{-2} will continue to go up over the next 1,000 years even if emissions stopped today. You can't stop it once you get it going. Unless we can pull an amazing trick of cleverness, that's what's going to happen. And it's a normal thing in biology. Anything that overgrows its resources gets smacked back down again. I foresee a loss of as much as 80 or 90 per cent of the people on Earth by the end of the century. It's a distinct possibility, and I don't think there's much we can do to stop it. You just have to make sure those who remain will be able to survive it.
Even the best climatologists will tell you in private that CO{-2} will continue to go up over the next 1,000 years even if emissions stopped today. You can't stop it once you get it going. Unless we can pull an amazing trick of cleverness, that's what's going to happen. And it's a normal thing in biology. Anything that overgrows its resources gets smacked back down again. I foresee a loss of as much as 80 or 90 per cent of the people on Earth by the end of the century. It's a distinct possibility, and I don't think there's much we can do to stop it. You just have to make sure those who remain will be able to survive it.
James Lovelock in Toronto and Polar Cities
Let's get rid of those pesky people
Next week, green guru James Lovelock brings his dire view of humanity's future to town. Here, a preview and counterpoint
May 23, 2009
Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter
Warning: If you suffer from climate anxiety, read on at your own risk.
British scientist James Lovelock calls himself a realist, not a pessimist. But it's difficult to walk away from a chat with the 89-year-old creator of the "Gaia" theory without feeling a sense of certain doom.
Lovelock came up with his Gaia theory while working in the early 1960s for NASA, where he developed instruments for detecting whether life existed on Mars. The idea is that the Earth functions as a single super-organism, with all its non-living and living systems – including humans – interacting to maintain a delicate balance.
Since then Lovelock has written several books about Gaia and, more recently, about how human-caused climate change is pushing Gaia to its limits. His latest book, published in April, is titled The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning.
His basic message is that humanity's "infection" of the Earth is irreversible and must now run its course. The Earth will come to a new balance, he argues, but the outcome for humanity won't be pretty.
Lovelock is to speak in Toronto on Tuesday at CBC's Glenn Gould Studio (corporateknights.ca ).
How does your outlook on climate change differ from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's predictions?
My conclusions don't predict a steady, smooth rise in temperature as CO{-2} levels rise equally, or a fall in temperature as CO{-2} is lowered. What I suggest is that once the temperature rises to a higher state, about 5 degrees C hotter than it's been, it will automatically stabilize there. So lowering the CO{-2} won't make any difference. We'll stay at that temperature.
So is there nothing we can do?
There are things we could do. What we can be sure about is that as the CO{-2} keeps on rising, the world climate is going to change adversely. Our first job, then, is adaptation. It means spending our efforts and money on preparing for the changes that are likely to happen, rather than spending a fortune trying to stop it from happening.
Next week, green guru James Lovelock brings his dire view of humanity's future to town. Here, a preview and counterpoint
May 23, 2009
Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter
Warning: If you suffer from climate anxiety, read on at your own risk.
British scientist James Lovelock calls himself a realist, not a pessimist. But it's difficult to walk away from a chat with the 89-year-old creator of the "Gaia" theory without feeling a sense of certain doom.
Lovelock came up with his Gaia theory while working in the early 1960s for NASA, where he developed instruments for detecting whether life existed on Mars. The idea is that the Earth functions as a single super-organism, with all its non-living and living systems – including humans – interacting to maintain a delicate balance.
Since then Lovelock has written several books about Gaia and, more recently, about how human-caused climate change is pushing Gaia to its limits. His latest book, published in April, is titled The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning.
His basic message is that humanity's "infection" of the Earth is irreversible and must now run its course. The Earth will come to a new balance, he argues, but the outcome for humanity won't be pretty.
Lovelock is to speak in Toronto on Tuesday at CBC's Glenn Gould Studio (corporateknights.ca ).
How does your outlook on climate change differ from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's predictions?
My conclusions don't predict a steady, smooth rise in temperature as CO{-2} levels rise equally, or a fall in temperature as CO{-2} is lowered. What I suggest is that once the temperature rises to a higher state, about 5 degrees C hotter than it's been, it will automatically stabilize there. So lowering the CO{-2} won't make any difference. We'll stay at that temperature.
So is there nothing we can do?
There are things we could do. What we can be sure about is that as the CO{-2} keeps on rising, the world climate is going to change adversely. Our first job, then, is adaptation. It means spending our efforts and money on preparing for the changes that are likely to happen, rather than spending a fortune trying to stop it from happening.
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and science awareness officer at UCC
How to delay the end of the world
JAMES LOVELOCK, who developed the Gaia theory of the earth, has issued an apocalyptic prediction. He claims that global warming is now irreversible and, as a result, more than six billion people will die before the end of the century. He offers one suggestion as to how we might help ourselves, but declares that this mechanism will not be implemented, writes WILLIAM REVILLE
This is mind-numbing stuff. The strong majority scientific position is that human activities have caused, or have strongly contributed to, global warming. My immediate reaction is one of anger. If Lovelock is even within an ass’s roar of being correct, how the hell did we allow this situation to develop – and what are we going to do about it?
The official scientific position holds that Lovelock’s claim is greatly exaggerated. Nevertheless, Lovelock must be taken seriously. He is one of the most eminent scientists of our time. He invented the electron capture detector, which alerted the world to the build-up of CFCs in the atmosphere; he originated and developed Gaia theory; he predicted that there is no life on Mars, based on a brilliant analysis of the Martian atmosphere; and he developed effective methods to freeze cells.
Basically, he now believes that earth’s feedback systems, which maintain our planet’s current moderate conditions, have been pushed beyond their capacities to cope by the stresses of pollution and the destruction of natural habitats. He sees the planet slipping into a new hotter equilibrium, a condition akin to a “fever”, where it may remain for 10,000 years.
Here is how Lovelock sees things developing. Rising temperatures, driven largely by human emissions of greenhouse gases, melt more polar ice, producing more water and bare land. This causes positive feedback, because water and land absorb heat from sunlight whereas ice reflects sunlight, causing more ice to melt. The rising temperature increases rainfall in some places and causes drought in others. Seas rise. The Amazon and the great northern forests die. The permafrost in northern latitudes melts, releasing methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – and so it goes on, and on.
Lovelock predicts that extreme weather and droughts will be common by 2020. The Sahara will be moving into Europe by 2040, Berlin will be as hot as Baghdad and London will face severe flooding. Millions of people will be driven north by food shortages. Epidemics will kill millions. By 2100 earth’s population will be reduced to 500 million from its current level of 6.6 billion and the survivors will mostly live in the far latitudes of Iceland, Canada, Scandinavia and the Arctic Basin.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn’t agree with Lovelock and says we can still control global warming by drastically reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases. Let us fervently hope the IPCC is right. But, so far, we haven’t been taking the IPCC prescriptions seriously and, in Lovelock’s words, quoted in New Scientist , January 2009 (Issue 2693): “Kyoto was 11 years ago. Virtually nothing has been done except endless talk and meetings.”
Lovelock reckons that we have only one last hope of saving ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. Growth of plants removes huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year, incorporating the gas into the plant structure. When residual plant waste material is later broken down by microbes in the soil, this carbon dioxide is returned to the atmosphere. The charcoal solution would prevent this return of carbon dioxide to the air. Farmers would annually take all the agricultural waste, burn it at very low oxygen levels, thereby turning it into non-biodegradable charcoal which they would then plough into the soil. This scheme would need no subsidy and would quickly bring down atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. Lovelock predicts that the charcoal solution will not be implemented and that we will just continue on with what he calls “useless gigantic scams” such as carbon trading.
We can let Lovelock’s doomsday scenario either numb us into despair or kick-start us into activity. We must have hope. We must re-dedicate ourselves to meet strict emissions targets. We must protect existing forests, plant new forests and protect natural ecosystems. We must add nuclear power to our energy-generation mix. And why not implement the charcoal option? But, in case Lovelock is right, we must also start to prepare to meet the worst, taking measures to mitigate the ill-effects of flooding of coastal areas, and so on. We no longer seem to have a choice. In the words of Andy Dufresne, played by Tim Robbins in the The Shawshank Redemption , as he contemplated, and rejected, the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison: “It comes down to a simple choice – get busy living, or get busy dying.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and science awareness officer at UCC – http://understandingscience.ucc.iehttp://understandingscience.ucc.ie
JAMES LOVELOCK, who developed the Gaia theory of the earth, has issued an apocalyptic prediction. He claims that global warming is now irreversible and, as a result, more than six billion people will die before the end of the century. He offers one suggestion as to how we might help ourselves, but declares that this mechanism will not be implemented, writes WILLIAM REVILLE
This is mind-numbing stuff. The strong majority scientific position is that human activities have caused, or have strongly contributed to, global warming. My immediate reaction is one of anger. If Lovelock is even within an ass’s roar of being correct, how the hell did we allow this situation to develop – and what are we going to do about it?
The official scientific position holds that Lovelock’s claim is greatly exaggerated. Nevertheless, Lovelock must be taken seriously. He is one of the most eminent scientists of our time. He invented the electron capture detector, which alerted the world to the build-up of CFCs in the atmosphere; he originated and developed Gaia theory; he predicted that there is no life on Mars, based on a brilliant analysis of the Martian atmosphere; and he developed effective methods to freeze cells.
Basically, he now believes that earth’s feedback systems, which maintain our planet’s current moderate conditions, have been pushed beyond their capacities to cope by the stresses of pollution and the destruction of natural habitats. He sees the planet slipping into a new hotter equilibrium, a condition akin to a “fever”, where it may remain for 10,000 years.
Here is how Lovelock sees things developing. Rising temperatures, driven largely by human emissions of greenhouse gases, melt more polar ice, producing more water and bare land. This causes positive feedback, because water and land absorb heat from sunlight whereas ice reflects sunlight, causing more ice to melt. The rising temperature increases rainfall in some places and causes drought in others. Seas rise. The Amazon and the great northern forests die. The permafrost in northern latitudes melts, releasing methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – and so it goes on, and on.
Lovelock predicts that extreme weather and droughts will be common by 2020. The Sahara will be moving into Europe by 2040, Berlin will be as hot as Baghdad and London will face severe flooding. Millions of people will be driven north by food shortages. Epidemics will kill millions. By 2100 earth’s population will be reduced to 500 million from its current level of 6.6 billion and the survivors will mostly live in the far latitudes of Iceland, Canada, Scandinavia and the Arctic Basin.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn’t agree with Lovelock and says we can still control global warming by drastically reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases. Let us fervently hope the IPCC is right. But, so far, we haven’t been taking the IPCC prescriptions seriously and, in Lovelock’s words, quoted in New Scientist , January 2009 (Issue 2693): “Kyoto was 11 years ago. Virtually nothing has been done except endless talk and meetings.”
Lovelock reckons that we have only one last hope of saving ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. Growth of plants removes huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year, incorporating the gas into the plant structure. When residual plant waste material is later broken down by microbes in the soil, this carbon dioxide is returned to the atmosphere. The charcoal solution would prevent this return of carbon dioxide to the air. Farmers would annually take all the agricultural waste, burn it at very low oxygen levels, thereby turning it into non-biodegradable charcoal which they would then plough into the soil. This scheme would need no subsidy and would quickly bring down atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. Lovelock predicts that the charcoal solution will not be implemented and that we will just continue on with what he calls “useless gigantic scams” such as carbon trading.
We can let Lovelock’s doomsday scenario either numb us into despair or kick-start us into activity. We must have hope. We must re-dedicate ourselves to meet strict emissions targets. We must protect existing forests, plant new forests and protect natural ecosystems. We must add nuclear power to our energy-generation mix. And why not implement the charcoal option? But, in case Lovelock is right, we must also start to prepare to meet the worst, taking measures to mitigate the ill-effects of flooding of coastal areas, and so on. We no longer seem to have a choice. In the words of Andy Dufresne, played by Tim Robbins in the The Shawshank Redemption , as he contemplated, and rejected, the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison: “It comes down to a simple choice – get busy living, or get busy dying.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and science awareness officer at UCC – http://understandingscience.ucc.iehttp://understandingscience.ucc.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)