A TV program I host, "Fukushima: Two Years After," is now up on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LYClI5orMY&feature=youtu.
The VVH-TV News Special Report is pegged on the symposium co-sponsored by Dr. Helen Caldicott’s Caldicott Foundation and Physicians for Social Responsibility held on March 11-12 at the New York Academy of Medicine.
It is also being broadcast on cable TV by VVH-TV throughout the New York Metropolitan Area as well as over-the-air and on the VVH-TV website www.wvvh.com.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
Nuclear Power/Nuclear Weapons -- and A Precarious Future
With the second anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster this week, with North Korea having just threatened a “pre-emptive nuclear attack” against the United States and a U.S. senator saying this would result in “suicide” for North Korea, with Iran suspected of moving to build nuclear weapons, with the continuing spread of nuclear technology globally, the future looks precarious as to humankind and the atom.
Can humanity at this rate make it through the 21st Century?
We were only able to get through the 20th Century without a major nuclear weapons exchange—without atomic doomsday—by the skin of our teeth.
With more nations having the ability to construct nuclear weapons—and any country with a nuclear power facility has the materiel and trained personnel to make nuclear weapons—the likelihood of this luck running out is high.
The only realistic way to secure a future for the world without nuclear war is for the entire planet to become a nuclear-free zone—no nuclear weapons, no nuclear power.
Radical? Yes, but consider the even more radical alternative: a world where many nations will be able to construct nuclear weaponry because they possess nuclear power technology. The only real way to end the threat of nuclear weapons spreading throughout the world is to abolish nuclear weaponry and eliminate nuclear power. Consider the alternative: trying to keep using carrots and sticks, juggling on the road to inevitable nuclear catastrophe.
There are major parts of the Earth—the entireties of Africa and South America, the South Pacific and others—that are Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones because of regional treaties recognized by the United Nations. In 1975, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution defining a Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone as an area with the “total absence of nuclear weapons” and establishing “an international system of verification and control…to guarantee compliance with the obligations deriving from [this] statute.” http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NWFZ.shtml
But if we are truly to have a world free of the horrific threat of nuclear weapons, the goal needs to be more than zones without them. A world free of the other side of the nuclear coin—nuclear power—is also necessary.
Any nuclear power facility can serve as a nuclear bomb factory.
That’s how India got The Bomb in 1974. Canada supplied a reactor for “peaceful purposes” and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission trained Indian engineers. And lo and behold, India had nuclear weapons
Some will say putting the atomic genie back into the bottle is impossible. However, anything people have done other people can undo—especially if the reason is good. And the prospect of massive loss of life from nuclear destruction is the best of reasons.
There’s a precedent in the outlawing of poison gas after World War I when its terrible impacts were tragically demonstrated. Chlorine gas, mustard gas, phosphene gas killed thousands on both sides of the conflict. http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/gas.htm The Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Chemicals Weapons Convention of 1933 outlawed chemical warfare and to a large degree the prohibition has held.
As for the connection between purportedly “peaceful” atomic energy and nuclear weapons, physicist Amory Lovins and attorney Hunter Lovins spell it out well in their book Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link. http://www.amazon.com/Energy-War-Breaking-Nuclear-Link/dp/B001261BYK “All nuclear fission technologies both use and produce fissionable materials that are or can be concentrated. Unavoidably latent in those technologies, therefore, is a potential for nuclear violence and coercion which may be exploited by governments, factions,” they write.
“Little strategic material is needed to make a weapon of mass destruction. A Nagasaki-yield bomb can be made from a few kilograms of plutonium, a piece the size of a tennis ball,” they note. A large nuclear power plant “annually produces hundreds of kilograms of plutonium; a large fast breeder reactor would contain thousands of kilograms; a large reprocessing plant may separate tens of thousands.”
Civilian nuclear power technology, they emphasize, provides the way to make nuclear weapons, furnishing the materiel and personnel. Nuclear weapons non-proliferation, they say, requires “civil denuclearization.”
As to claims of the energy generated by nuclear power plans being necessary, that’s not true. Safe, clean, renewable energy—led by solar and wind energy technologies—is available to provide all the power the world needs.
Among entities focusing on this is the organization Go 100% which on its website http://www.go100percent.org/cms/index.php?id=3 says: “Across the globe—in regions, cities, communities, businesses, and individual lives—people are proving that 100% renewable energy is not a fantasy for someday, but a reality today….The conventional fossil and nuclear energy system has led to multiple convergent existential crises, including climate change, air and water pollution, destruction of the oceans, the threat of mass extinction, water and food shortages, poverty, nuclear radiation problems, nuclear weapons proliferation, fuel depletion, and geopolitical problems.” Go 100% provides details on the abundant research determining that the world can fully power itself with safe, clean, renewable energy, and what’s happening in nations—particularly Germany—now moving toward that goal.
The dangers of nuclear power—in addition to permitting the development of nuclear weapons by any nation that has it—are immense.
As he retired from the navy in 1982, Admiral Hyman Rickover, considered the “father” of the U.S. nuclear navy who was also in charge of building the first U.S. commercial nuclear power plant, in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, told a Congressional committee that inherent in nuclear power is radioactivity which made life impossible on Earth, Until a few billion years ago, Rickover told the panel, “it was impossible to have any life on Earth; that is, there was so much radiation on Earth you couldn’t have any life—fish or anything. “ Then, “gradually, “the amount of radiation on this planet and probably in the entire system reduced and made it possible for some form of life to begin.”
“Now,” he went on, by utilizing nuclear power, “we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible…Every time you produce radiation,” a “horrible force” is unleashed,“in some cases for billions of years, and I think there the human race is going to wreck itself.”
Having seen the light after decades of being deeply involved in nuclear technology, Rickover said: “I’m talking about humanity—the most important thing we could do is to start in having an international meeting where we first outlaw nuclear weapons to start off with, then we outlaw nuclear reactors, too.”
As for nuclear weapons, he said: “The lesson of history is when a war starts, every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon has been available. That is the lesson learned time and again. Therefore, we must expect, if another war—a serious war—breaks out, we will use nuclear energy in some form” and “we will probably destroy ourselves.”
Planet Earth must be a nuclear-free zone—without nuclear weapons, without nuclear power—if the human race and other life forms are to survive.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Ernest Moniz: A Pro-Nuclear, Pro-Fracking U.S. Energy Secretary
With the nomination of Ernest Moniz to be the next U.S. secretary of Energy, President Barack Obama has selected a man who is not only a booster of nuclear power but a big proponent of fracking, too. What happened to Obama’s call for “clean” energy in his 2013 State of the Union address?
Moniz, a physicist and director of the MIT Energy Initiative, heavily financed by energy industry giants including BP and Chevron, has long advocated nuclear power. He has continued arguing for it despite the multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant complex, maintaining that the disaster in Japan should not cause a stop in nuclear power development.
In a 2011 essay in Foreign Affairs magazine titled “Why We Still Need Nuclear Power,” Moniz wrote: “In the years following the major accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, nuclear power fell out of favor, and some countries applied the brakes to their nuclear programs. In the last decade, however, it began experiencing something of a renaissance….But the movement lost momentum in March, when a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and the massive tsunami it triggered devastated Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant…The event caused widespread public doubts about the safety of nuclear power to resurface. Germany announced an accelerated shutdown of its nuclear reactors, with broad public support.” But, insisted Moniz, “It would be a mistake…to let Fukushima cause governments to abandon nuclear power and its benefits.” www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136544/ernest-moniz/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power
Moniz went on: “Nuclear power’s track record of providing clean and reliable electricity compares favorably with other energy sources.” Foreign Affairs is the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, which regards itself an elite grouping of government officials, industry executives, scientists and media figures. Moniz is a member.
He also said in the essay that “the public needs to be convinced that nuclear power is safe.” As U.S. energy secretary, this will likely be a main thrust of Moniz. He would endeavor to lead the 16,000-employee Department of Energy with a budget of $27 billion for 2013 in trying to get the American public to believe in what decades ago the U.S. government promoted as “Citizen Atom.”
Likewise, when it comes to hydraulic fracturing or fracking—the process that uses hundreds of toxic chemicals and massive amounts of waster under high pressure to fracture shale formations to release gas captured in them—Moniz told the Senate Energy Committee in 2011 that the water and air pollution risks associated with fracking were "challenging but manageable" with appropriate regulation and oversight.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-cabinet-energy-idUSBRE91602H20130207
Fracking also can also lead to radioactive contamination. Many shale formations contain Radium-226 and other radioactive poisons unleashed in the fracking process.
Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, declared after Obama’s nomination of Moniz on Monday, that the group “has grave concerns about Mr. Moniz’s history of support for both nuclear power and fracking.” Pica described Moniz’s support of nuclear power despite “the unfolding catastrophe” of Fukushima as “frightening.” On Moniz being “a big booster of fracking,” Pica said this has been “seemingly without due regard for the environmental and public health risks and impacts.”
http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-03-04-statement-on-the-nominations-for-secretary-of-energy-epa-administrator
Nevertheless, in Washington Monday, Obama, describing Moniz as a “brilliant scientist,” said: “Most importantly, Ernie knows that we can produce more energy and grow our economy while still taking care of our air, our water and our climate. And so I could not be more pleased to have Ernie join us.” /www.heraldnews.com/newsnow/x2082705444/Obama-nominates-Fall-River-native-Ernie-Moniz-for-cabinet-post
It’s not as if Obama wasn’t warned about Moniz.
For weeks, as reports spread that Moniz would be replacing Obama’s first energy secretary, the also staunchly pro-nuclear power Steven Chu, former director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the organization Food & Water Watch circulated an online petition for people to send to Obama. It stated: “This is not the person we need as our country’s Energy Secretary at this critical moment. We need a visionary leader who can enact policies that move us away from intensive fossil fuel extraction, such as fracking, and toward a renewable energy future.” https://secure3.convio.net/fww/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=499&JServSessionIdr004=b8hjkk1b01.app339a Other groups circulated similar petitions.
And it’s not as if Moniz was unfamiliar to Obama, or Washington. He has been a member of both Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. And he was an undersecretary in the Department of Energy in the Clinton administration.
Obama’s stance as president on nuclear power has been a change from his position as candidate Obama. “I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal and so I am not a nuclear energy proponent,” Obama said campaigning in Iowa on 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32eHlQKAN8A He went on that unless the “nuclear industry can show that they can produce clean, safe energy without enormous subsidies from the U.S. government, I don’t think that’s the best option. I am much more interested in solar and wind and bio-diesel and strategies [for] alternative fuels.” As he told the editorial board of the Keene Sentinel in New Hampshire that year: “I don’t think there’s anything that we inevitably dislike about nuclear power. We just dislike the fact that it might blow up and irradiate us and kill us. That’s the problem.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxl2cVFTLw
Nevertheless, in his first State of the Union speech he spoke about “building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country” and kept repeating that pitch. But in recent times, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, Obama has increasingly avoided using the words nuclear power—he didn’t refer to it at all in his State of the Union address this January. Instead he has let Chu, and will let, if he is confirmed, Moniz, do the talking about nuclear power and pushing it as an energy source for the United States.
As to fracking, in his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama said “the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. That’s why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.”
Moniz, a physicist and director of the MIT Energy Initiative, heavily financed by energy industry giants including BP and Chevron, has long advocated nuclear power. He has continued arguing for it despite the multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant complex, maintaining that the disaster in Japan should not cause a stop in nuclear power development.
In a 2011 essay in Foreign Affairs magazine titled “Why We Still Need Nuclear Power,” Moniz wrote: “In the years following the major accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, nuclear power fell out of favor, and some countries applied the brakes to their nuclear programs. In the last decade, however, it began experiencing something of a renaissance….But the movement lost momentum in March, when a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and the massive tsunami it triggered devastated Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant…The event caused widespread public doubts about the safety of nuclear power to resurface. Germany announced an accelerated shutdown of its nuclear reactors, with broad public support.” But, insisted Moniz, “It would be a mistake…to let Fukushima cause governments to abandon nuclear power and its benefits.” www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136544/ernest-moniz/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power
Moniz went on: “Nuclear power’s track record of providing clean and reliable electricity compares favorably with other energy sources.” Foreign Affairs is the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, which regards itself an elite grouping of government officials, industry executives, scientists and media figures. Moniz is a member.
He also said in the essay that “the public needs to be convinced that nuclear power is safe.” As U.S. energy secretary, this will likely be a main thrust of Moniz. He would endeavor to lead the 16,000-employee Department of Energy with a budget of $27 billion for 2013 in trying to get the American public to believe in what decades ago the U.S. government promoted as “Citizen Atom.”
Likewise, when it comes to hydraulic fracturing or fracking—the process that uses hundreds of toxic chemicals and massive amounts of waster under high pressure to fracture shale formations to release gas captured in them—Moniz told the Senate Energy Committee in 2011 that the water and air pollution risks associated with fracking were "challenging but manageable" with appropriate regulation and oversight.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-cabinet-energy-idUSBRE91602H20130207
Fracking also can also lead to radioactive contamination. Many shale formations contain Radium-226 and other radioactive poisons unleashed in the fracking process.
Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, declared after Obama’s nomination of Moniz on Monday, that the group “has grave concerns about Mr. Moniz’s history of support for both nuclear power and fracking.” Pica described Moniz’s support of nuclear power despite “the unfolding catastrophe” of Fukushima as “frightening.” On Moniz being “a big booster of fracking,” Pica said this has been “seemingly without due regard for the environmental and public health risks and impacts.”
http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-03-04-statement-on-the-nominations-for-secretary-of-energy-epa-administrator
Nevertheless, in Washington Monday, Obama, describing Moniz as a “brilliant scientist,” said: “Most importantly, Ernie knows that we can produce more energy and grow our economy while still taking care of our air, our water and our climate. And so I could not be more pleased to have Ernie join us.” /www.heraldnews.com/newsnow/x2082705444/Obama-nominates-Fall-River-native-Ernie-Moniz-for-cabinet-post
It’s not as if Obama wasn’t warned about Moniz.
For weeks, as reports spread that Moniz would be replacing Obama’s first energy secretary, the also staunchly pro-nuclear power Steven Chu, former director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the organization Food & Water Watch circulated an online petition for people to send to Obama. It stated: “This is not the person we need as our country’s Energy Secretary at this critical moment. We need a visionary leader who can enact policies that move us away from intensive fossil fuel extraction, such as fracking, and toward a renewable energy future.” https://secure3.convio.net/fww/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=499&JServSessionIdr004=b8hjkk1b01.app339a Other groups circulated similar petitions.
And it’s not as if Moniz was unfamiliar to Obama, or Washington. He has been a member of both Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. And he was an undersecretary in the Department of Energy in the Clinton administration.
Obama’s stance as president on nuclear power has been a change from his position as candidate Obama. “I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal and so I am not a nuclear energy proponent,” Obama said campaigning in Iowa on 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32eHlQKAN8A He went on that unless the “nuclear industry can show that they can produce clean, safe energy without enormous subsidies from the U.S. government, I don’t think that’s the best option. I am much more interested in solar and wind and bio-diesel and strategies [for] alternative fuels.” As he told the editorial board of the Keene Sentinel in New Hampshire that year: “I don’t think there’s anything that we inevitably dislike about nuclear power. We just dislike the fact that it might blow up and irradiate us and kill us. That’s the problem.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxl2cVFTLw
Nevertheless, in his first State of the Union speech he spoke about “building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country” and kept repeating that pitch. But in recent times, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, Obama has increasingly avoided using the words nuclear power—he didn’t refer to it at all in his State of the Union address this January. Instead he has let Chu, and will let, if he is confirmed, Moniz, do the talking about nuclear power and pushing it as an energy source for the United States.
As to fracking, in his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama said “the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. That’s why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.”
Thursday, February 21, 2013
On Mayor Bloomberg's Push to Ban Polystyrene Food Packaging
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg last week announced that he would push for a ban on polystyrene food packaging. “One product that is virtually impossible to recycle and never biodegrades is Styrofoam—something that we know is environmentally destructive and that may be hazardous to our health, that is costing taxpayers money and that we can easily do without,” he said in his 2013 State of the City address. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bloomberg-new-york-ban-styrofoam-20130214,0,4423954.story
Congratulations to the mayor for an important environmental crusade and good luck as those with vested interests attempt to block his initiative.
For what Mayor Bloomberg is doing is not new in the New York Metropolitan Area. Suffolk County on Long Island, where I live, enacted the first-in-the-nation ban on the use of polystyrene food containers back in 1988. That was 25 years ago! And what a battle it was.
Mobil and Amoco, oil companies that produce the light, heat-resistant containers, mounted huge advertising campaigns against the Suffolk measure. Polystyrene is made of oil. The Society of the Plastic Industry fought the bill. Lobbying of Suffolk legislators was intense.
McDonald’s was deeply involved. I vividly recall executives of the fast-food chain appearing before the Suffolk County Legislature asserting that without these “clamshell” containers, the Big Mac as we know it would be no more. These containers were necessary, they said, to keep the Big Mac warm.
The measure passed and was signed into law. And people have been able to live quite well in Suffolk without the banned polystyrene food containers. They were never necessary other than to profit vested interests. And the Big Mac remains alive and well in Suffolk, still warm.
To be precise, Styrofoam is the trademark name of the Dow Chemical Company for the polystyrene foam it manufactures. The correct general term for the substance is polystyrene. And Mayor Bloomberg will no doubt soon find out about this for Dow is very up-tight about the use of the word Styrofoam to identify polystyrene foam.
I wrote a book a number of years ago about chemical dangers and was asked to speak at Delta College in Midland, Michigan, the corporate headquarters of Dow. I recall a lecture organizer advising me before I took to the rostrum that there would be Dow representatives in the audience and if I used the word Styrofoam “Dow will freak out” and I and Delta College could expect letters from Dow lawyers.
The Suffolk measure—which stuck to the word polystyrene—stressed how it constitutes “a threat to the environment in the County of Suffolk by causing excessively rapid filling of landfill space or, if incinerated, by the possible introduction of toxic byproducts into the atmosphere.” http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Suffolk-Co-NY-Ban.htm
The case against polystyrene is very strong. It takes centuries to biodegrade. Poisons are emitted if it’s incinerated. It’s a major component of plastic waste—including debris in the ocean. Polystyrene is lethal to any bird or sea creature that swallows a significant quantity. Also, chemicals in polystyrene migrate from packaging into food and there are health concerns for people. Moreover, as the Suffolk law stresses—there are “available substitutes.”
The current program in the TV series I have hosted for 22 years, Enviro Close-Up, is “Plastic Free with Beth Terry.” Enviro Close-Up is syndicated by Free Speech TV on 200 cable systems across the U.S., on the satellite TV networks, DirecTV and Dish, and on the Internet. Ms. Terry is the author of “Plastic Free: How I Kicked the Plastic Habit and How You Can Too.” http://myplasticfreelife.com/plastic-free-how-i-kicked-the-plastic-habit-and-how-you-can-too/
She tells on the program of the “epiphany” which caused her to become a crusader against plastics—learning about the death of “huge numbers” of birds caused by the North Pacific Gyre, also known as "Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” This is a gigantic deposit of plastic debris—a lot of it polystyrene—floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. “Some people say it’s the size of the United States,” says Ms. Terry.
The Enviro Close-Up features graphic video of this toxic situation. And it provides Ms. Terry’s advice about how we can live with a minimum of plastic. You can view the program on youtube at www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2aA-LEUuvs
Since the Suffolk ban was enacted, cities and other counties and municipalities all over the United States—as well as Toronto, Canada and several cities overseas including Paris, France—have followed up with similar bans on polystyrene food packaging. http://www.ehow.com/list_7686702_countries-banned-styrofoam.html
It would be great if New York City joins in—but that will require Mayor Bloomberg surviving the gauntlet which now will be laid down by polystyrene promoters.
Congratulations to the mayor for an important environmental crusade and good luck as those with vested interests attempt to block his initiative.
For what Mayor Bloomberg is doing is not new in the New York Metropolitan Area. Suffolk County on Long Island, where I live, enacted the first-in-the-nation ban on the use of polystyrene food containers back in 1988. That was 25 years ago! And what a battle it was.
Mobil and Amoco, oil companies that produce the light, heat-resistant containers, mounted huge advertising campaigns against the Suffolk measure. Polystyrene is made of oil. The Society of the Plastic Industry fought the bill. Lobbying of Suffolk legislators was intense.
McDonald’s was deeply involved. I vividly recall executives of the fast-food chain appearing before the Suffolk County Legislature asserting that without these “clamshell” containers, the Big Mac as we know it would be no more. These containers were necessary, they said, to keep the Big Mac warm.
The measure passed and was signed into law. And people have been able to live quite well in Suffolk without the banned polystyrene food containers. They were never necessary other than to profit vested interests. And the Big Mac remains alive and well in Suffolk, still warm.
To be precise, Styrofoam is the trademark name of the Dow Chemical Company for the polystyrene foam it manufactures. The correct general term for the substance is polystyrene. And Mayor Bloomberg will no doubt soon find out about this for Dow is very up-tight about the use of the word Styrofoam to identify polystyrene foam.
I wrote a book a number of years ago about chemical dangers and was asked to speak at Delta College in Midland, Michigan, the corporate headquarters of Dow. I recall a lecture organizer advising me before I took to the rostrum that there would be Dow representatives in the audience and if I used the word Styrofoam “Dow will freak out” and I and Delta College could expect letters from Dow lawyers.
The Suffolk measure—which stuck to the word polystyrene—stressed how it constitutes “a threat to the environment in the County of Suffolk by causing excessively rapid filling of landfill space or, if incinerated, by the possible introduction of toxic byproducts into the atmosphere.” http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Suffolk-Co-NY-Ban.htm
The case against polystyrene is very strong. It takes centuries to biodegrade. Poisons are emitted if it’s incinerated. It’s a major component of plastic waste—including debris in the ocean. Polystyrene is lethal to any bird or sea creature that swallows a significant quantity. Also, chemicals in polystyrene migrate from packaging into food and there are health concerns for people. Moreover, as the Suffolk law stresses—there are “available substitutes.”
The current program in the TV series I have hosted for 22 years, Enviro Close-Up, is “Plastic Free with Beth Terry.” Enviro Close-Up is syndicated by Free Speech TV on 200 cable systems across the U.S., on the satellite TV networks, DirecTV and Dish, and on the Internet. Ms. Terry is the author of “Plastic Free: How I Kicked the Plastic Habit and How You Can Too.” http://myplasticfreelife.com/plastic-free-how-i-kicked-the-plastic-habit-and-how-you-can-too/
She tells on the program of the “epiphany” which caused her to become a crusader against plastics—learning about the death of “huge numbers” of birds caused by the North Pacific Gyre, also known as "Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” This is a gigantic deposit of plastic debris—a lot of it polystyrene—floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. “Some people say it’s the size of the United States,” says Ms. Terry.
The Enviro Close-Up features graphic video of this toxic situation. And it provides Ms. Terry’s advice about how we can live with a minimum of plastic. You can view the program on youtube at www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2aA-LEUuvs
Since the Suffolk ban was enacted, cities and other counties and municipalities all over the United States—as well as Toronto, Canada and several cities overseas including Paris, France—have followed up with similar bans on polystyrene food packaging. http://www.ehow.com/list_7686702_countries-banned-styrofoam.html
It would be great if New York City joins in—but that will require Mayor Bloomberg surviving the gauntlet which now will be laid down by polystyrene promoters.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Will Good Science and Good Sense Come Together When It Comes to the Shoreline?
Soon after Sandy struck, an OpEd piece titled “We Need to Retreat from the Beach” by Dr. Orrin Pilkey, a pioneer in what’s now become the science of shoreline dynamics, appeared in the New York Times.
Dr. Pilkey wrote, “As ocean waters warm, the Northeast is likely to face more Sandy-like storms” with “surges…higher and ever more deadly….Yet there is already a push to rebuild homes close to the beach and bring back shorelines to where they were.” This “is the wrong approach to the increasing hazard of living close to the rising sea.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/opinion/a-beachfront-retreat.html
“We should not simply replace all lost property and infrastructure. Instead, we need to take account of rising sea levels, intensifying storms and continuing shoreline erosion,” he said.
Dr. Pilkey, co-author of the landmark work The Beaches Are Moving, wrote that “we should strongly discourage the reconstruction of destroyed or badly damaged beachfront homes…This is tough medicine, to be sure, and taxpayers may be forced to compensate homeowners. But it should save taxpayers money in the long run by ending this cyclc of repairing or rebuilding properties in the path of future storms.”
Now, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, in an extraordinary move for a politician considering the intense lobbying through the years by beachfront homeowners, is proposing to purchase structures wrecked by Sandy—at their pre-Sandy value—have them demolished and then preserve the flood-prone land permanently, as undeveloped coastline.
“The land would never be built on again. Some properties could be turned into dunes, wetlands or other natural buffers that would help protect coastal communities from ferocious storms; other parcels could be combined and turned into public parkland,” reported the Times in breaking the story as a Page One lead article. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/nyregion/cuomo-seeking-home-buyouts-in-flood-zones.html?pagewanted=all
In a follow-up editorial, the Times called the Cuomo concept “splendid” and stated that “buying damaged properties and returning them to their natural state, as Mr. Cuomo proposes, is one of the best ideas to come along.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/opinion/gov-andrew-cuomos-sandy-plan.html
But will good science and good sense come together when it comes to the shoreline?
It will be mighty difficult—but it very much needs to happen.
The problem: vested interest. Many if not most of the folks who own beach houses—even ones left in shambles by Sandy and in highly vulnerable locations—don’t want to give them up. I appreciate this. Visiting an old friend with a beach house a while back, gazing out a window and seeing the majestic Atlantic Ocean outside, I thought of the thrill of having a house on the sea. Sitting on his deck, the waves breaking below, was exciting.
Dr. Pilkey realizes this. “I understand the temptation to rebuild,” he wrote in his OpEd. “My parents’ retirement home, built at 13 feet above sea level, five blocks from the shoreline in Waveland, Miss., was flooded to the ceiling during Hurricane Camille in 1969. They rebuilt it, but the house was completely destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.”
An inquiry by the Long Island newspaper Newsday to gauge sentiment towards the Cuomo plan, found the “overwhelming number of Island residents would rather rebuild than relocate.” http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/real-estate/pols-few-on-li-want-to-move-under-cuomo-buyout-plan-1.4562781
The Army Corps of Engineers is another factor in what’s been a constant—after a big storm the dumping of sand (given the appealing term “beach nourishment”) on the coast, sand often washed away in the next big storm, and otherwise taking on Mother Nature. The Corps is run by a combination of military officers and engineers who believe they can win any war including against nature. Also, coastal work keeps the Corps’ budget hefty.
Then there’s the National Flood Insurance Program. After seeing a TV commercial promoting it recently, I requested a brochure. The government pamphlet began: “Since flooding typically isn’t covered under your homeowners insurance policy, the best way to protect your home is through the National Flood Insurance Program.” The reluctance of private insurance companies to cover homes built in the teeth of the ocean says a lot. The lobbying of beachfront homeowners was instrumental in getting Congress to provide this taxpayer-supported program.
Key to the situation is Dr. Pilkey’s observation way back: The Beaches Are Moving. They are in flux and need to be flexible to protect the mainland. Add to this today’s rising sea levels and extreme weather caused by climate change.
Retreat might not be a good word to use for what needs to be done. It infers losing. Adjustment is a better word. We must adjust to the reality of our shifting shores.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Steven Chu, Nuclear Power Advocate, Resigns as U.S. Energy Secretary
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced his resignation last week after four years of pushing nuclear power, although he promoted energy efficiency and safe, renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind, too.
But nuclear power remained a major focus of Dr. Chu, a physicist out of the U.S. national nuclear laboratory system. In his letter to Department of Energy employees announcing his departure, Chu listed as among “tangible signs of success” during his tenure the go-ahead for the building of “the first nuclear power plants in the last three decades” in the U.S.
His position on energy as energy secretary was similar to the stand he took in his previous role as director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. There he also promoted energy efficiency and renewables, but nuclear power was a main thrust of his energy stance.
“Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio,” declared Chu, as laboratory director, at an “economic summit” in California in 2008 sponsored by Stanford University. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-9888608-60.html He said in his speech: “The fear of radiation shouldn’t even enter into this. Coal is very, very bad.”
As energy secretary, speaking at the Vogtle nuclear plant site in Georgia last year, where two of the new plants he cited in his letter are supposed to be built, he said: “The resurgence of America’s nuclear industry starts here in Georgia, where you just got approval for the first time in three decades to build new reactors. The Obama administration is committed to doing our part to help jumpstart America’s nuclear industry. The Energy Department is supporting this project with more than $8 billion in conditional loan guarantees. And we have partnered with industry to support the certification and licensing of the new Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design.” http://energy.gov/articles/secretary-chus-remarks-vogtle-nuclear-power-plant-prepared-delivery
Describing nuclear power as a “clean” energy technology, Chu said, “What you are doing here at Vogtle will help us compete in the global clean energy race and provide domestic, clean power to U.S. homes.”
And, the year before, in a presentation before the International Atomic Energy Agency, Chu asserted: “Nuclear power will continue to be an important part of our energy mix, both in the United States and around the world.” The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster had occurred just six months before, and he also said: “The tragic events at Fukushima make clear that nuclear energy…also brings significant challenges to our collective safety and security.” http://energy.gov/downloads/secretary-steven-chu-remarks-prepared-delivery-2011-iaea-general-conference
Some news pieces in recent days about Chu’s resignation have mentioned the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project and how—as the Las Vegas Review Journal accurately put it—Chu “carried out the Obama administration’s plan to shut down” the project. http://www.lvrj.com/news/doe-secretary-chu-resigns-battled-yucca-project-189463781.html
For Chu as a nuclear laboratory director was a supporter of the plan to deposit massive amounts of nuclear waste at the site, as noted by CNN in a 2011 piece. http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/06/news/economy/nuclear_waste/index.htm As energy secretary, Chu switched to the stance of President Obama (and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada). The mountain 100 miles from Las Vegas is riddled with earthquake faults.
In his letter to DOE employees, Chu challenged—as he pointed out Obama did in his recent inaugural address—those who deny climate change. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science…The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity has had a significant and likely dominant role in climate change,” Chu wrote.
He went on to promote “clean” energy as an antidote.
The key problem here, however, is that by including nuclear power in the “clean” energy category, Chu refuses to accept that the nuclear “fuel cycle” involved in nuclear power—mining, milling, fuel fabrication, enrichment and so on—is a significant contributor to greenhouse gasses and climate change.
And he refuses to accept that true “clean” energy—safe renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind—can provide all the energy we need and not contribute to climate change at all. “A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables” was a 2009 cover story in Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030, about one major study done in recent years coming to the same conclusion.
But Chu titled his 2010 essay, on his personal Facebook page—“Why We Need More Nuclear Power.” He insisted that “we need nuclear power as part of a comprehensive solution.” He asked for comments. https://www.facebook.com/notes/steven-chu/why-we-need-more-nuclear-power/336162546856 One reader, Matthew Cloner, commented, on March 12, 2011: “I’m afraid that I cannot agree with you in your position, Dr. Chu. As the recent disaster in Japan unfolds before our eyes, it is very obvious that nuclear power is both extremely dangerous and environmentally unsound as an energy source.”
But it’s hard for Chu and many other scientists out of the national nuclear laboratory system to acknowledge the deadliness of the technology which is the basis for most of their work.
These laboratories connect with the early laboratories set up during the World War II Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bombs. Chu’s former laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley, was then called the Radiation Laboratory. It describes itself as the “oldest” of the national laboratories. http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/75th/ It and the other national nuclear laboratories were long run by the Atomic Energy Commission, which the Manhattan Project was turned into after the war. Then, because the AEC was such a zealous advocate of nuclear power, while supposedly a regulator of the technology, the AEC was eliminated by Congress in 1974 and a Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then a Department of Energy were created.
The DOE was given the mission of promoting nuclear power—a mission that Chu pursued as energy secretary. It also replaced the AEC in running the national nuclear laboratories.
Chu’s position—“The fear of radiation shouldn’t even enter into this. Coal is very, very bad”—doesn’t acknowledge how radiation-causing nuclear technology as well as coal are both unnecessary, that “100 Percent of the Planet” can he powered by safe, really clean, renewable energy sources.
Who will replace Chu when he leaves the DOE helm at month’s end? Obama’s appointee could be more of the same.
Among the names seen as a possibility is that of Carol Browner. Working out of the White House, she was Obama’s energy “czar” between 2009 and 2011, and administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration. She is a nuclear power booster. Browner stressed at a New Millennium Nuclear Energy Summit in Washington in 2010 that the U.S. was “once at the forefront” of the nuclear industry. “We need to recapture that dominant position, and there’s every reason to think we can,” she declared. https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_566093
By selecting Browner or another nuclear proponent, Obama would be sending the U.S. in the wrong energy direction—a direction not good for public health nor safely powering society and not good, either, to deal with climate change.
-
But nuclear power remained a major focus of Dr. Chu, a physicist out of the U.S. national nuclear laboratory system. In his letter to Department of Energy employees announcing his departure, Chu listed as among “tangible signs of success” during his tenure the go-ahead for the building of “the first nuclear power plants in the last three decades” in the U.S.
His position on energy as energy secretary was similar to the stand he took in his previous role as director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. There he also promoted energy efficiency and renewables, but nuclear power was a main thrust of his energy stance.
“Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio,” declared Chu, as laboratory director, at an “economic summit” in California in 2008 sponsored by Stanford University. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-9888608-60.html He said in his speech: “The fear of radiation shouldn’t even enter into this. Coal is very, very bad.”
As energy secretary, speaking at the Vogtle nuclear plant site in Georgia last year, where two of the new plants he cited in his letter are supposed to be built, he said: “The resurgence of America’s nuclear industry starts here in Georgia, where you just got approval for the first time in three decades to build new reactors. The Obama administration is committed to doing our part to help jumpstart America’s nuclear industry. The Energy Department is supporting this project with more than $8 billion in conditional loan guarantees. And we have partnered with industry to support the certification and licensing of the new Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design.” http://energy.gov/articles/secretary-chus-remarks-vogtle-nuclear-power-plant-prepared-delivery
Describing nuclear power as a “clean” energy technology, Chu said, “What you are doing here at Vogtle will help us compete in the global clean energy race and provide domestic, clean power to U.S. homes.”
And, the year before, in a presentation before the International Atomic Energy Agency, Chu asserted: “Nuclear power will continue to be an important part of our energy mix, both in the United States and around the world.” The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster had occurred just six months before, and he also said: “The tragic events at Fukushima make clear that nuclear energy…also brings significant challenges to our collective safety and security.” http://energy.gov/downloads/secretary-steven-chu-remarks-prepared-delivery-2011-iaea-general-conference
Some news pieces in recent days about Chu’s resignation have mentioned the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project and how—as the Las Vegas Review Journal accurately put it—Chu “carried out the Obama administration’s plan to shut down” the project. http://www.lvrj.com/news/doe-secretary-chu-resigns-battled-yucca-project-189463781.html
For Chu as a nuclear laboratory director was a supporter of the plan to deposit massive amounts of nuclear waste at the site, as noted by CNN in a 2011 piece. http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/06/news/economy/nuclear_waste/index.htm As energy secretary, Chu switched to the stance of President Obama (and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada). The mountain 100 miles from Las Vegas is riddled with earthquake faults.
In his letter to DOE employees, Chu challenged—as he pointed out Obama did in his recent inaugural address—those who deny climate change. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science…The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity has had a significant and likely dominant role in climate change,” Chu wrote.
He went on to promote “clean” energy as an antidote.
The key problem here, however, is that by including nuclear power in the “clean” energy category, Chu refuses to accept that the nuclear “fuel cycle” involved in nuclear power—mining, milling, fuel fabrication, enrichment and so on—is a significant contributor to greenhouse gasses and climate change.
And he refuses to accept that true “clean” energy—safe renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind—can provide all the energy we need and not contribute to climate change at all. “A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables” was a 2009 cover story in Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030, about one major study done in recent years coming to the same conclusion.
But Chu titled his 2010 essay, on his personal Facebook page—“Why We Need More Nuclear Power.” He insisted that “we need nuclear power as part of a comprehensive solution.” He asked for comments. https://www.facebook.com/notes/steven-chu/why-we-need-more-nuclear-power/336162546856 One reader, Matthew Cloner, commented, on March 12, 2011: “I’m afraid that I cannot agree with you in your position, Dr. Chu. As the recent disaster in Japan unfolds before our eyes, it is very obvious that nuclear power is both extremely dangerous and environmentally unsound as an energy source.”
But it’s hard for Chu and many other scientists out of the national nuclear laboratory system to acknowledge the deadliness of the technology which is the basis for most of their work.
These laboratories connect with the early laboratories set up during the World War II Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bombs. Chu’s former laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley, was then called the Radiation Laboratory. It describes itself as the “oldest” of the national laboratories. http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/75th/ It and the other national nuclear laboratories were long run by the Atomic Energy Commission, which the Manhattan Project was turned into after the war. Then, because the AEC was such a zealous advocate of nuclear power, while supposedly a regulator of the technology, the AEC was eliminated by Congress in 1974 and a Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then a Department of Energy were created.
The DOE was given the mission of promoting nuclear power—a mission that Chu pursued as energy secretary. It also replaced the AEC in running the national nuclear laboratories.
Chu’s position—“The fear of radiation shouldn’t even enter into this. Coal is very, very bad”—doesn’t acknowledge how radiation-causing nuclear technology as well as coal are both unnecessary, that “100 Percent of the Planet” can he powered by safe, really clean, renewable energy sources.
Who will replace Chu when he leaves the DOE helm at month’s end? Obama’s appointee could be more of the same.
Among the names seen as a possibility is that of Carol Browner. Working out of the White House, she was Obama’s energy “czar” between 2009 and 2011, and administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration. She is a nuclear power booster. Browner stressed at a New Millennium Nuclear Energy Summit in Washington in 2010 that the U.S. was “once at the forefront” of the nuclear industry. “We need to recapture that dominant position, and there’s every reason to think we can,” she declared. https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_566093
By selecting Browner or another nuclear proponent, Obama would be sending the U.S. in the wrong energy direction—a direction not good for public health nor safely powering society and not good, either, to deal with climate change.
-
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Will the Internet Remain Free?
From seemingly out of nowhere, the Internet has become the greatest global platform for free expression the world has ever seen.
But will this last?
Last month, an international conference was held that pitted nations seeking greater governmental control over the Internet -- led by Russia and China -- against countries advocating a hands-off approach. These included the United States, Canada, Israel, and nations of Western Europe including Great Britain.
The U.S. ambassador to World Conference on International Telecommunications, Terry Kramer, declared: "The Internet has thrived because it has been left in an open environment, and all the commercial opportunities that accrued, and the rights to free speech and democracy, are because it's been left alone."
Kramer, in the telecommunications field for 25 years, was appointed by President Barack Obama to head the U.S. delegation to the 12-day conference held in Dubai. Some 2,000 people from 193 nations participated.
"An attempt to establish global oversight of the Internet has collapsed after many Western countries said a compromise plan gave too much power to United Nations and other officials," reported RTE News, a website out of Ireland, about the conference. It added: "While other countries will sign the treaty, the absence of so many of the largest economies means that the document, already watered down to suit much of the West, will have little practical force."
But the struggle is far from over.
The resolution agreed upon -- although not by the nations opposed -- resolved that the UN secretary-general "continue to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the multi-stakeholder model of the Internet."
ITU is the acronym for the International Telecommunications Union which hosted the conference. Although now an agency of the UN, it predates the world body by more than 75 years having been founded in 1865 to help coordinate international standards for telegraph signals. After the Titanic sank in 1912 -- a disaster compounded by problems involving reception of signals from the ill-fated ship, ITU's role greatly increased.
Comparing this "landmark" Titanic-based event with what has been happening with the ITU and the Internet, Professor Patrick S. Ryan wrote an article in the Stanford Technology Law Review last year entitled, "The ITU and the Internet's Titanic Moment."
Ryan, a professor in the University of Colorado at Boulder Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program as well as a "policy counsel" for Open Internet at Google, Inc.,wrote: "While the ITU isn't exactly a household name, it nonetheless may end up making critical--and potentially harmful--decisions that have a profound effect on Internet users around the globe." He said the December ITU conference "together with policy consultations in 2013...may significantly change how the Internet is governed."
Ryan is highly critical of the ITU. "Perhaps the greatest problem with the ITU," he states, "is its lack of transparency. Most democratic governments and processes have some fundamental right to public information and to the system for creating it. Yet the ITU is closed, opaque, and obfuscated in terms of its legislative treaty-making processes and in its standard-setting processes." It is a "large, closed, bureaucratic organization that uses scare tactics in an attempt to reinforce the need for its regulatory involvement."'
But the situation involves far more than the ITU.
At its center is the clash between people expressing themselves freely and those in power threatened by this -- a conflict as old as the printing press.
Indeed, every semester in my classes in Investigative Reporting at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, I give a lecture on this conflict between free expression and power -- a battle that's been never-ending.
In the Internet collision now, the ITU would be a tool used by those in power frightened by the Internet -- and because it's a global medium, their need for an international lid put on this pot of free expression.
Russia's scheme at the conference, according to the Associated Press, was to get a resolution passed with language requiring "member states to ensure the public has unrestricted access and use of international telecommunication services 'except in cases where international communications services are used for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other states, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature.'... The wording of this provision could allow a country to repress political opposition while citing a UN treaty as the basis for doing so."
In my lecture, I go back to the oldest of "old" mass media -- the newspaper -- and its slow growth after Johann Gutenberg invented his printing press around 1440. It took more than a century for newspapers to then come about, and I cite the literature that explains how this first occurred in places with weak or tolerant governance. I quote Edwin Emery from his book The Press and America: An Interpretative History of the Mass Media that: "It is significant that the newspaper first flourished in areas where authority was weak, as in Germany, at that time divided into a patchwork of small principalities, or where rulers were most tolerant as in the low countries."
I discuss the tyrannical control of the press by monarch after monarch in America's mother country, England, and how they kept a tight lid on the press by requiring licensing, and punishing those expressing the slightest dissent.
I quote from that great plea for a free press in England, by poet John Milton, in his Aeropagitica in 1844, in which he said "we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting." There need be free expression, said Milton, and with it would come truth and falsehood, too, but "in a free and open encounter" truth would triumph."
It was under the powerful monarchs of England that a press system began termed "authoritarian" by three communications professors in their 1956 book Four Theories of the Press, a seminal media analysis.
Under the authoritarian press system, they write, the "chief purpose" of the press is "to support and advance the policies of the government in power; and to service the state." Forbidden is "criticism of political machinery and officials in power."
This, unfortunately, is still the media system in many nations of the world today.
Arriving subsequently was what they term the "libertarian" press system. Under it, the function of the press, they relate, is "to inform, entertain, sell -- but chiefly to help discover truth, and to check on government."
The conflict when it comes to the Internet has been going on for some time. "Worldwide Battle for Control of the Internet" was the headline in 2009 of an article in the British magazine, New Scientist.
"When thousands of protesters took to the streets in Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing that followed," the article started. "A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used Facebook to organize protests against the country's communist government, and elsewhere too the Internet is playing an increasing role in political dissent. Now governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of information and the ability to communicate."
It went on to outline the "Internet clampdown" by "governments across the globe." It cited the work of organizations that have sprung up to keep the Internet free, including the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, a representative of which was quoted in the piece as saying, "Political filtering is the common denominator."
Other organizations include, notably, OpenNet Initative (in which the Berkman Center is one of three participant institutions). The website of OpenNet Initiative chronicles situation after situation of nations censoring the Internet.
China has developed a comprehensive program of rigid Internet censorship
As the New York Times reported in an article in December: "Internet censorship in China is among the most stringent in the world. The government blocks Web sites that discuss the Dalai Lama, the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters, Palun Gong, the banned spiritual movement, and other Internet sites. As revolts began to ricochet through the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, and homegrown efforts to organize protests began to circulate on the Internet, the Chinese government tightened its grip on electronic communications, and appeared to be more determined than ever to police cellphone calls, electronic messages, e-mail and access to the Internet in order to smother any hint of antigovernment sentiment."
"The government's computers intercept incoming data and compare it against an ever-changing list of banned keywords or Web sites," the Times article continued, "screening out even more information. The motive is often obvious: Since late 2010, the censors have prevented Google searches of the English word 'freedom.'"
Russia's rulers, too, regard the Internet as threatening. In November, a law was passed in Russia "blacklisting websites that the government determines have illegal content," Forbes reported. This article quoted a statement about the situation in Russia from Reporters Without Borders: "The Russian state is characterized by a lack of political pluralism and widespread corruption... The Internet, a space where independent voices still find expression, is now being targeted by the authorities, who are trying to develop online filtering and surveillance. Bloggers are the victims of lawsuits and prosecutions."
The pattern of Internet suppression seen in China and Russia is also being pursued by many other nations -- as is presented clearly by the OpenNet Initiative's website and Wikipedia's website "Internet censorship by country."
A key problem involving the "libertarian" press system over the years has been: who can afford to own a press? Yes, the press is ostensibly free, but there's been the question: who has the money to own a newspaper, magazine, TV or radio station or publish books? As the American press critic A.J. Liebling wrote in The New Yorker magazine in 1960: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
But now, with a computer and an Internet connection, anybody can "own a press" and be an active participant in media. That is very scary to the rulers of Russia and China and the other nations that stood with them at the ITU conference which included Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sudan, Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates.
They didn't get what they wanted. But this was just one attempt in what will be an ongoing effort to undermine the Internet globally.
(This article was published today on The Huffington Post.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
