IN A TIME OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT...TELLING THE TRUTH BECOMES A REVOLUTIONARY ACT

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wicked of men will do the most wicked of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes

" Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration" Abraham Lincoln

Friday, April 22, 2011

SPRINGTIME IN THE WRANGELLS? [and] VOICES OF OUR ELDERS

               SPRINGTIME IN THE WRANGELLS?

Last week, crack Supercub pilot and best friend of the Alaska Progressive Review, Erik Hursh, and I finally reprised our ski in to the Nugget Creek cabin, at the base of 4997 metre (16390') Mt. Blackburn. A trip originally undertaken late last November under more arduous conditions, fraught with peril for our intrepid assistant editor.

This time around, we had much better conditions, and more importantly, more time to enjoy ourselves in this amazing place. The trail in to the cabin is a slowly rising 24 KM (15 miles) excursion through the boreal forest above the valley of the Kuskulana River/Glacier.

Starting out, you can see how slowly the trail starts rising. These tracks in front, most of them were bear, some moose. The bears are starting to stir from their winter sleep. Some of the tracks were clearly large enough to be of brown bear, and we also saw some wolf tracks. Fortunately, we never ran into any, so Mattie and Homer didn't have to use their sharper survival skills, to protect me. The trail conditions were superb. Snowmachine traffic over the winter was enough to pack it down hard in the middle, so Mattie and Homer weren't post-holing. It was sunny and about 4-5C starting out (39-41F) at 1100, so the top few cm of the snow were melting and loose, but still hard underneath. This gave me great glide on my waxless touring skis, with the ability to slow down and keep in control on the few downhill sections. Perfect spring skiing conditions!

There were only a couple places where I had to take off my skis briefly, this was around KM  14, the last of several creeks that crossed the trail. It was just a little too steep and narrow here for me to be able to stay in control on my skis. But that only took a few minutes, so was not a problem.

The trail just keeps gradually ascending as it heads northeast toward the base of Mt. Blackburn, which becomes visible after the Clear Creek crossing, after KM 14.
A beautiful beacon to guide you on your way. It was so nice to have these perfect spring conditions with the abundant sunshine, and longer days. Very unlike our trip late last November.

Three hours and fifty-five minutes after starting out, this is the view crossing Nugget Creek, with the cabin on the left. What a difference from last November, when it took us 6:30 breaking trail through the frozen rain crust!

Blackburn rises 4050 metres in relief above it's base, greater than that of Denali or Everest, from their bases! From the cabin, to the mountain slope is only about 12-14 KM, so it is an amazing view, which I can gaze at endlessly.

Erik had been fighting off an illness the past week, so he decided to fly the Supercub in, and land it on a little strip by Nugget Creek, down from the cabin about 500 metres. Unfortunately, some nasty person(s) tore up the strip on a snowmachine, to keep planes from landing, but Erik was able to finesse the little cub on it's skis down to a decent landing without flipping. This also meant he hauled most of my gear in it, allowing me to ski with just 10 KG of weight on, all the more nicer! Otherwise it would have been more than double that, since I brought along snowshoes, ice axe, and boots, for climbing around the local heights there.

Erik had a nice fire going when I got there, since he arrived a few hours earlier. The cabin is well-maintained by the National Park Service, since it is in Wrangell/St.Elias N.P., with four cushioned bed platforms, and a new woodstove, with a large wood supply outside. Very comfortable and relaxing.

That first evening, after a short nap, we all had to explore the area around the cabin. Erik and I skied up a trail behind the cabin which was unbroken for a long time. We had to slowly break through several cm crust on top, with almost a metre of powder underneath. Unfortunately, Mattie and Homer wanted to follow along, though I told them to wait at the cabin, because I knew it would be hard for them without snowshoes or skis. Sure enough, they both kept getting stuck and crying/whining. We turned back just 30 min. out, came back to Mattie who was still struggling. Poor ole Homer was much further back, stuck in the snow. At 14 now, his back legs are weaker, and he just gave up. I had to pick him up and basically haul him out. Not easy on skis!

Later that evening, around 830 pm, Blackburn was still fully in the gentle light and clear. Had to get a few pictures right outside the cabin. Zooming in real close with my camera, the perpetually-frozen top of the mountain was crystal-clear. Amazing to think that it was probably -30C (-22F) up there with some wind, when it was around 0C and calm down here. 

After a clear, calm night with no wind, the next day dawned at about -8C (18F). There was another trail right behind the cabin that ascended steeply up to a road to some mining ruins. The conditions were a little better on it for Mattie and Homer, and as we got higher, it actually was hard-packed enough, that they were not sinking in at all. I was on snowshoes, and Erik on skis, it ascended fairly quickly. A few KM up, nice views of Kuskulana glacier, not visible from the cabin, combined with that of the Blackburn. Truly an amazing place. One we'd like to see in the late summer or fall as well. Though we'd likely see more people. Looking at the log book in the cabin, only a few people came in there in March/early April, and none, in Dec/Jan/Feb!

Saturday afternoon, Erik decided it was time for our aerial excursion in the Super-Cub around Blackburn. These amazing little planes burn no more gas than a small car, and can take off and land in as little as 100 metres. And can also fly at very low speeds, as low as 80-100 KPH (50-60 mph). Giving you the sensation of almost floating by whatever scenery is to be found. 

We had to manually pick up the back of the plane and turn it around for the takeoff, which was not easy, as we would break through into as much as a metre of powder snow beneath the top crust. 

But we managed, and the takeoff was a little bumpy because of the attempted ruin of the strip by the snowmachiners. What follows next was scenery to be found in very few places on the planet. 
Sheer walls of rock/snow/ice ascended thousands of metres on each side as we slowly ascended just 50 metres or so above the Kuskulana glacier. I have to admit, I get a little nervous being so close to these, but Erik is a highly experienced and competent pilot, and there was only a very light prevailing northerly wind flow, so we had perfect flying conditions.

This glacier descended straight down from the south face of Blackburn, merging with the Kuskulana glacier. 

We flew around the east and south flanks of Blackburn, then through a pass between sheer knife-like 2625 metre (8600') ridges in front of it. Huge chunks of ice tumbing from glacier fronts passed slowly beneath us. This would not be an easy place to get around on foot in!

On the other side of that pass, another glacier, which runs into the Kuskulana, descended from a bowl, backed by 3000-4000 metre headwalls. Erik decided to see if a landing could be made here. We took one pass where he gently touched the skis down without committing, and it felt good. So, we fluttered down to a landing on this nameless glacier at 2100 metres (6700'), and got out on the hard-packed snow to walk around. It was a beautiful day, here about -7C (20F) with barely a breeze. This is a short video with a 360 deg. view of the site. What a treat to get to see this area, perpetually frozen wilderness that very few people are ever able to venture into. The slopes of Blackburn tumble down precipitously 2000-2500 metres to this glacier in sheer walls of rock and ice.

After this landing, it was just a short 15 minute hop back to the strip by the cabin. This time, after we landed, we turned the plane around to get it ready for Erik's departure the next morning. Which took some doing, as it was a little more off to the side than last time. So it was quite arduous, good thing there were two people.

That evening, saturday evening, the view to the east of the cabin, of the mountains framing the east side of the Kuskulana Creek/Glacier were out in full splendour. They are between 2000-3000 metres (6600-9100 ft), with glaciers as well, very beautiful and worth seeing. 

It was with some reluctance that we both had to leave the next morning. But it was another perfect day, with light northerly winds, and about -1C (30F) when I set out with Mattie and Homer, on skis, from the cabin. Shortly thereafter, Erik buzzed us from above as he flew out, showing off with sharp turns and banks in the agile little moth of a plane. It only took us 2:43 to get out! Because it was a little icier, the snow was faster. I was enjoying it so much, just did it nonstop. We wish it had actually been longer, the conditions and scenery were so perfect. 

If anyone reading this would like instructions on how to find the trailhead for this fairly easy (any novice or intermediate nordic skier could handle it, and it could easily be bikeable) but beautiful route, please let us know. We'll be happy to guide you in the right direction! 

                             VOICES OF OUR ELDERS

Happy Earth Day, this coming Sunday! Which also happens to be Easter Sunday, this year. And, by UN proclamation, Happy Mother Earth Day! Celebrate the arrival of spring, as we are, and let's honour the Earth, of which we are a part, and which provides for us all of our needs.
For the past several thousand years, dating at least from the Romans, in Europe, but even preceding that, the prevailing cultures of Europe, and then the Middle East, have distanced themselves ever more from the Natural World, and set human beings apart from it, and dominant over it. While at the same time, developing rigid hierarchical societies, kept intact through the force of arms. The main religions of the time, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all have that basic premise in their belief systems. Even in Asia, during these same times, trends along these lines began, with empires in China forming and enduring, all held intact through fear and intimidation. And so, with this overarching belief and view, that humanity is somehow distinct from, and superior to, the Natural World, and hence, must control it, we have developed our "western" culture in which science, technology, and control of Nature are inherently not questioned, and accepted as a given. And what has that given us? 

In it's most extreme, as in the U.S., but to a lesser extent in Europe, Canada, China, and Japan, technologies that are poisoning the environment, nuclear power, deepwater oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction, strip/mountaintop removal coal mining, and the destruction of vast swathes of boreal forests in Canada to extract oil from tar sands. An economic system, developed in Europe, but refined in the U.S. into it's most extreme, vicious, and predatory form, based on greed and competition, deliberately suppressing cooperation and solidarity amongst people, concerned only with short-term profit, at the expense of the vast majority of humanity and the Earth.  Predicated on unlimited resource extraction and growth (cancer), which will lead to global environmental collapse within 30-50 years due to climatic shifts from greenhouse gas warming acting in concert with tropical deforestation.
But it doesn't have to be so. We really liked this article we saw the other day. It's just a simple essay, describing our current reality from an exterior frame of reference. 
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/19-0

The World of Our Dreams

A stunning and hopeful truth: The world we must create in order to survive is also the vision that unites us.


This is the sixteenth of a series of blogs based on excerpts adapted from the 2nd edition of Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth. I wrote Agenda to spur a national conversation on economic policy issues and options that are otherwise largely ignored. This blog series is intended to contribute to that conversation. —DK

In 1992, I participated in the civil society portion of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It involved some fifteen thousand people representing the vast variety of humanity’s races, religions, nationalities, and languages. It was, at the time, the largest and most diverse global gathering in human history. Our discussions centered on defining, and committing ourselves to, the vision of the world we would create together.
These discussions were chaotic and often contentious. But at one point it hit me like a bolt of lightning. Despite our differences, we all wanted the same things: healthy, happy children, families, and communities living in peace and cooperation in healthy natural environments. Out of our conversations emerged an articulation of our shared dream of a world in which people and nature live in dynamic, creative, cooperative, and balanced relationships. The Earth Charter, which is the product of a continuation of this discussion, calls it Earth Community, a community of life.
I’ve lived in a lot of places with starkly different cultures: Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Indonesia, the Philippines, California, Massachusetts, Florida, Virginia, New York City, and Bainbridge Island in Puget Sound. Surprise! Look beneath the colorful differences in cultural expression and you find at the core everyone wants to breathe clean air and drink clean water. They want tasty, nutritious food uncontaminated with toxins. They want meaningful work, a living wage, success and happiness for their children, and security in their old age. They want a say in the decisions their governments make and they want to live in peace.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun magazine, observes that:
The great spiritual-religious wisdom traditions of the world have all taugh some variant of this message: The deepest human pleasures come from living in a world based on justice, peace, love, generosity, kindness, and celebration of the universe and service to the ultimate moral law of the universe (whether learned through revelation or through reason).
For 5,000 years we have continuously recreated a world that appeals only to the psychologically deranged.

Beyond our varied races, religions, nationalities, and languages, we humans share a collective dream of a world of healthy, happy children, families, communities, and natural environments joined in peace and cooperation. These are all forms of real wealth that are not available for purchase or sale and have no monetary equivalent. These are our primary sources of true happiness.

We have been trapped in Empire’s pernicious rule-or-be-ruled, kill-or-be-killed, play-or-die dynamic by geographic and cultural barriers that have kept us divided and unable to embrace our true nature and common interest. The possibility to liberate ourselves from this self-inflicted tragedy is within our grasp.

The communication technologies of the Internet in place for little more than 20 years create a potential for collective dialogue, organizing, and action never before available. We now have the means, as well as the need and the right, to bridge the geographic and cultural barriers that have for so long divided us, recognize our common yearning, and bring forth cultures and institutions that cultivate and reward our higher nature.
Do we have the will? I believe we do. It is being expressed by growing millions of people working largely outside the institutions of Empire.

Yet economists prefer to assess economic performance by growth in gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the market value of economic output. The GDP can be rising in the face of simultaneous epidemics of child obesity and starvation. It can be rising in the face of disintegrating families and a vanishing middle class, increasing prison populations, rising unemployment, the disruption of community, collapsing environmental systems, the hollowing out of domestic manufacturing capabilities, failing schools, growing trade deficits, and costly but senseless foreign wars.

And all the while, economists tell us we are getting richer. Such nonsense.

Consider how differently we might organize our human economies if we measured economic performance by indicators of the outcomes we truly seek—the sources of true happiness.

It is a stunning and hopeful truth. The world we must now create if there is to be a human future is also the world of our common dream. The barriers are self-inflicted. They include the fabricated belief that we are by nature incapable of cooperating in the common good and the use of flawed measures of economic and social performance.

So let us recognize and cultivate the potentials of our true nature and henceforth assess the performance of our economies against the outcomes we truly seek.
This Agenda for a New Economy blog series is co-sponsored by CSRwire.com and YesMagazine.org based on excerpts from Agenda for a New Economy, 2nd edition.

David Korten
David Korten (livingeconomiesforum.org) is the author of Agenda for a New Economy, TheGreat Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, and the international best seller When Corporations Rule the World. He is board chair of YES! Magazine and co-chair of the New Economy Working Group.

There are just a few countries on the planet that have governments now that are becoming more responsive to the needs of their people, and the protection of their environment, which are deeply intertwined. Many of these are in South America, and the most prominent of these, is Bolivia. Which is THE ONLY country so far, in the Western Hemisphere, to be led by their Indigenous people, and in which, are truly trying to govern in a manner reflective of their culture and belief systems. This is primarily why your lead editor felt it necessary to visit that country in 2008, to learn about it, and spread that knowledge. We here at the Alaska Progressive Review feel that it is imperative that humanity as a whole, remember the wisdom of our distant pasts, and heed the warnings from our Indigenous people's in the present. 
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/13-2

UN Document Would Give 'Mother Earth' Same Rights as Humans

UNITED NATIONS — Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.
Bolivia is planning to table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans. (Photograph by: NASA) The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to "dominate and exploit" — to the point that the "well-being and existence of many beings" is now threatened.

The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.

That document speaks of the country's natural resources as "blessings," and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.

It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature's complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.

"If you want to have balance, and you think that the only (entities) who have rights are humans or companies, then how can you reach balance?" Pablo Salon, Bolivia's ambassador to the UN, told Postmedia News. "But if you recognize that nature too has rights, and (if you provide) legal forms to protect and preserve those rights, then you can achieve balance."

The application of the law appears destined to pose new challenges for companies operating in the country, which is rich in natural resources, including natural gas and lithium, but remains one of the poorest in Latin America.

But while Salon said his country just seeks to achieve "harmony" with nature, he signalled that mining and other companies may come under greater scrutiny.

"We're not saying, for example, you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow," he said. "But when human activity develops at a certain scale that you (cause to) disappear a species, then you are really altering the vital cycles of nature or of Mother Earth. Of course, you need a mine to extract iron or zinc, but there are limits."

Bolivia is a country with a large indigenous population, whose traditional belief systems took on greater resonance following the election of Morales, Latin America's first indigenous president.

In a 2008 pamphlet his entourage distributed at the UN as he attended a summit there, 10 "commandments" are set out as Bolivia's plan to "save the planet" — beginning with the need "to end capitalism."

Reflecting indigenous traditional beliefs, the proposed global treaty says humans have caused "severe destruction . . . that is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother Earth is sacred."

It also says that "Mother Earth has the right to exist, to persist and to continue the vital cycles, structures, functions and processes that sustain all human beings."

In indigenous Andean culture, the Earth deity known as Pachamama is the centre of all life, and humans are considered equal to all other entities.

The UN debate begins two days before the UN's recognition April 22 of the second International Mother Earth Day — another Morales-led initiative.

Canadian activist Maude Barlow is among global environmentalists backing the drive with a book the group will launch in New York during the UN debate: Nature Has Rights.

"It's going to have huge resonance around the world," Barlow said of the campaign. "It's going to start first with these southern countries trying to protect their land and their people from exploitation, but I think it will be grabbed onto by communities in our countries, for example, fighting the tarsands in Alberta."

Ecuador, which also has a large indigenous population, has enshrined similar aims in its Constitution — but the Bolivian law is said to be "stronger."

Ecuador is among countries that have already been supportive of the Bolivian initiative, along with Nicaragua, Venezuela, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda.

It has been our premise for several years now, here at the A.P.R., if the human race is to survive with some forms of civilisation intact over the next 50-100 years, we must heed the voices of the Earth's Indigenous people, and incorporate their holistic world-view into "ours". Lest the ecosystems that nurture and provide for us are poisoned and destroyed in the drive for short-term corporate profits, which benefit only a very small portion of humanity, whilst perpetuating illegal and immoral warfare, dehumanizing and enslaving the rest. Cheers. 

Monday, April 11, 2011

GLOBAL WARMING AND ALASKA FIRE SEASONS [and] FUKUSHIMA UPDATE


Greetings all. With so much going on these past several months, middle-east uprisings, the tragedies in Japan, and the now overt class warfare by corporations/oligarchy on working people in the U.S., we haven't talked about one of our most familiar subjects, for some time. Climate change. But following is a long article we have written over the last few months, with solid scientific, peer-reviewed citations, containing the state-of-the-science findings on the status of the Earth's warming climate, with respect to wildfire seasons. After that, we'll give you an update on the Fukushima nuclear situation.

ALASKA WILDFIRE SEASONSA Background, What is Happening, and What Can We Expect?

Background:  Most of mainland Alaska south of the Brooks Range, and inland from the Bering and Chukchi Seas lies fully in the Boreal Forest ecosystem. This least-disturbed of the Earth’s major forest systems is estimated to cover about 17 percent of the land area on the planet, and is comprised of only limited numbers of species of conifers and deciduous hardwoods - spruce, pine, larch, fir, birch, aspen, and balsam poplar. [3]

The high latitudes of the Arctic region over the past 30 years have seen greater warming from fossil-fuel combustion emissions of CO2, and Methane (emitted mainly from/by land-use changes, increased livestock production, and permafrost melting) than any other place on Earth, with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula. [2]

A recent research article in the journal of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Science, puts it very succinctly:

“The Arctic is responding more rapidly to global warming than most other areas on our planet. Northward-flowing Atlantic Water is the major means of heat advection toward the Arctic and strongly affects the sea ice distribution. Records of its natural variability are critical for the understanding of feedback mechanisms and the future of the Arctic climate system, but continuous historical records reach back only ~150 years. Here, we present a multidecadal-scale record of ocean temperature variations during the past 2000 years, derived from marine sediments off Western Svalbard (79°N). We find that early–21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.” [1]

The warmer Atlantic Ocean waters flowing into the Arctic Ocean are now thought to be causing the increasingly colder, stormier winter weather patterns in the eastern U.S. and western Europe, seen in the last two winters especially:

 “The warming Arctic and melting sea ice is a planetary-scale change since the Arctic Ocean covers 14 million sq km, an area almost as big as Russia. The Arctic and Antarctic polar regions are key drivers of Earth's weather and climate. The rapid defrosting of the Arctic has already altered the climate system, researchers now agree.
IPS previously broke the story revealing that the snow and cold in the eastern United States and Europe during the winter of 2009-10 was likely the result of the loss of Arctic sea ice. The same thing has happened this year.
As more and more sea ice melts, there is more open water to absorb the summer sun's heat. A day of 24-hour summer sun in the Arctic puts more heat on the surface of the ocean than a day in the tropics, James Overland of the NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in the United States told IPS.

That extra heat in the ocean is gradually released into the lower atmosphere from October to January as the region slowly re-freezes months later than normal. This is a fundamental change - a large part of the Arctic Ocean is radiating heat instead of being cold and ice-covered. That has disrupted wind circulation patterns in the northern hemisphere, reported Overland and other researchers at the International Polar Year Oslo Science Conference in Norway last June.

The result: the Arctic stays warm and mid-latitude regions become colder and receive more snow for much of the winter. Last December was the coldest south Florida has experienced in more than a century of record-keeping.
Most of Britain suffered through its coldest December ever. Up in the Arctic, Coral Harbour on the northwest corner of Hudson Bay was above zero degrees C for two days in early January for the first time in history. Much of the eastern Arctic centred around Baffin Island averaged +21C above normal between Dec. 17 and Jan. 15 this year.” [4]

Interior Alaska Observed Climate Change:  In the Alaska interior, scientists at the Alaska Climate Research Center, part of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, recently released their latest findings documenting climate change over the last century there. They concluded:

“The climate of Fairbanks was analyzed for a century, ending in 2006. The temperature has increased by 1.4C, almost twice the global increase, which is expected as a result of the polar amplification in temperature change. While the overall trend is positive, as expected from increasing greenhouse gases, the temperature increase is non-linear, with multi-decadal variations. Auto-correlation analyses showed a weak, non-significant cycle of 11 years (sunspot cycle). Furthermore, there was a sudden temperature increase observed in 1976, which could be related to circulation patterns as expressed in the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] index. The strengthening of the Aleutian Low in winter has led to more advection of warm air and a decrease in atmospheric pressure for Fairbanks [due to southerly “or Chinook” flow ahead of it, pushing maritime air inland, north across/through the Alaska Range, M.Richmond].

Over the century, the growing season increased in length by 45% [!], a substantial value and highly important for agriculture and forestry. The 11% decrease in precipitation (data available since 1916), together with increasing temperatures, makes the occurrence of droughts and wildfires more likely.” [7]

Western U.S. and Canada:  Before delving into Alaska wildfire patterns and trends, it will be helpful to see what has been happening to the south, in the Western U.S., and Canada. Because what seems to be happening in Alaska, as the climate warms, is that weather patterns are shifting north, as well. This is exactly what happened during the record-breaking 2004 Alaska fire season, in which 6.72 million acres (2.72 million hectares) burned. [5]

Climate researcher A.L. Westerling, at the time working at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a leading global oceanographic and climatological research facility in San Diego, and his colleagues, published in 2006 research results describing observed changes in Western U.S. and Canada fire season length and severity. The results agree well, with what your lead editor has seen, just in my relatively short span of 24 years as an operational meteorologist throughout the Western U.S. and Alaska:

Western United States forest wildfire activity is widely thought of have increased in recent decades, yet neither the extent of recent changes, nor the degree to which climate may be driving regional changes in wildfire has been systematically documented. Much of the public and scientific discussion of changes in Western United States wildfire has focused instead on the effects of 19th and 20th century land-use history. We compiled a comprehensive database of large wildfires in Western United States forests since 1970 and compared it with hydroclimatic and land-surface data. Here, we show that large wildfire activity increased suddenly, and markedly in the mid 1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, where land-use histories have relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt” [9]

Alaska Fire Seasons:  A short description of what drives the severity and duration of Alaska wildfire seasons is needed before proceeding further. Unlike the coniferous forests in the Western U.S. and Canada, the mixed spruce/deciduous species Boreal forest in Interior Alaska, is not as dependant on spring snowpack melting to provide the moisture for summer vegetative growth. This is because, historically speaking, over interior Alaska, precipitation increases during the period from late May, through the summer. Peaking between mid-July to mid August, depending on the location. Dry, warm spells, caused by intermittent high pressure ridging, usually only persist for one to two weeks, separated by the passage of weak low pressure disturbances in the less distinct summer polar jet-stream, which bring both stratiform (steady, light, longer-lasting) rains, as well as quicker, sometimes heavier, and more scattered convective showers and thunderstorms. 

So the Boreal Forest species, have been usually able to obtain the moisture they need for growth, during the overall course of the summer. This is easily seen by the fact that in elevated terrain in the interior, with no permafrost drainage-related issues, root systems of all the forest species are still quite shallow, generally under four to five feet, instead, spreading out laterally just a few feet under the surface. Unfortunately for these species, this also leaves them quite vulnerable to acute moisture stress, during extended dry spells caused by more persistent high-pressure ridging episodes. Something seen dramatically in 2004, 2005, and 2009; trees on Alaska Interior upland sites became parched and withered, when three week and longer, warm, dry spells occurred. This dramatically increases wildland fire behavior, to the point that in late July and August 2004, the hardwood birch, aspen, and balsam poplar species, which normally don’t burn nearly to the extent that the more flammable black spruce do, were becoming fully involved in crown fire episodes. [5] 

Large Alaska Interior wildfires, unlike those in the Western Lower 48 states, are usually naturally ignited by lightning. Because of the vast size of the sparsely-populated Interior, only fires in pre-defined areas that could threaten towns, villages, or significant natural resources, receive focused suppression actions. Otherwise, they can grow to tremendously large sizes, sometimes to 500,000 acres or more. 
                
Drought-stressed aspen, willow, and balsam poplar trees on Chena Ridge, near Fairbanks, Alaska, late July 2009. M.Richmond


The plot above, of Alaska seasonal wildfire acreages since 1955 (when accurate measurement began), combined with may-august average temperatures in Fairbanks, is very illustrative. In general, both show and increasing trend. And, as would be expected, there is at least some correlation between the average growing season temperature, and the corresponding season’s wildfire acreage (some large fire years may only have one or two very warm, dry summer months, during which most of the acreage is burned). The inter-annual variability is quite large, but this is reflective of the fact that in the higher latitudes, so is seasonal weather. Because the weak summer jet stream moves north during Northern Hemisphere summers to these latitudes; any subtle shifts in average strengths, locations, and durations of the transient high and low pressure systems in it, produce large effects.  A simple mathematical mean of the wildfire acreages during the period of record, 1955-2010, is around 910,000, while the median (the most frequently occurring), is about 450,000. There seems to be a pattern shift around 1987, concurrent with the one Westerling, et al, observed in the Western U.S. Before this time, the low acreage years were more frequent, and of lower value, than after 1987. The higher acreage years occur more frequently. And, just since 2004, the first (2004), third (2005), and sixth (2009) highest acreage years have occurred.
 
Unfortunately, the period of record of automated sensor-derived lightning strike accumulations across Alaska is only about 25 years long. And, sensor additions and improvements over the past ten years have resulted in better detection and depiction of them. So there hasn’t been any detailed, quantitative assessment of lightning strike trends in Alaska. Speaking subjectively however, several veteran Alaska operational meteorologists have commented that they feel lightning strike density has been increasing over the state, and especially the interior, over the past 15 years or so. And, days of extreme high-frequency lightning strike accumulation, seem to have increased over the past 10 years, during which 9,000 to 12,000 or more strikes have been observed. Such a trend is to be expected with the overall warming that Alaska has experienced, and should continue, and possibly even accelerate. Because summer-time high pressure ridging episodes in Alaska bring about the warm, dry spells that drive wildfire season duration and severity. 

The weather pattern preceding the amplification of a high pressure ridge over Alaska is often one that is conducive to thunderstorm development. Especially when there is a low pressure system to the south, in the Gulf of Alaska, and an east to southeast low to mid level flow (up to 20,000 feet) around it, over the Interior. Moisture and instability from the remains of old frontal systems from the Gulf of Alaska circulates over the region in that flow, and under the right circumstances, can cause the massive lightning outbreaks that can ignite hundreds of fires. Which in the ensuing warm, dry pattern underneath a high pressure ridge, can then rapidly spread. A high pressure ridge is just a mass of warm, dry air, caused by the subsidence (sinking) motions in it. Around the periphery of these, where the subsidence is not as strong, “air-mass” thunderstorms, generated from local instability, also arise. As the high pressure ridges become stronger, the depth of the troposphere, the lower, active atmospheric layer in which our sensible weather occurs, becomes deeper. This in turn, allows deeper convection, and hence, stronger thunderstorms to occur, capable of generating higher lightning strike densities, and igniting more fires. [5]

These are the trends we have seen in Alaska, since 1955. So what does the latest research suggest for the future trends/occurrences of Alaska wildfire seasons? Before we get into that, let’s look at two extreme events that have recently occurred elsewhere, as they provide stark warnings for the rest of the World. Australia, in February, 2009, and last summer, 2010, in Russia. 

AUSTRALIA FEBRUARY 2009
Australia is essentially a desert continent, just looking at it from space, that is quite apparent. Because it lies in the latitudes between 15 degrees and 39 degrees south of the Equator, the tropics and subtropics. Globally speaking, deserts occur on all the continents in these general latitudes.
 
The only areas of Australia that receive more than 15 inches (38 cm) of precipitation are on the coastal margins in the southwest, far northern, and eastern and southeastern portions of the continent. Yet because of the presence of the large, hot, dry desert interior, even these moister continental margins can occasionally experience extreme heat waves when the desert air is pushed east and south by the right weather pattern.


The states of Victoria and New South Wales, in the far southeast, are particularly vulnerable to these extreme heat waves. Because of their latitudes further from the Equator, they normally have a more temperate climate, with average summer high temperatures of 74-86F (24-30C). In addition, within 50-100 miles (80-160 km) of the coastlines, annual precipitation is enough, 25-45 inches (50-115 cm), or more, in the highest terrain, to support varied, dense, closed-canopy forests of mainly different Eucalyptus species.

Eucalyptus species trees have resins and oils in their leaves and wood that makes them burn very intensely. The combination of this, with the high fuel loading that occurs in the moister areas of Victoria and New South Wales, and the occasional extreme summer desert heat-waves, gives these areas the dubious distinction of having the greatest potential fire danger in the entire World.

Fire danger is measured and forecast in Australia by using actual and predicted maximum temperatures, minimum relative humidities, and wind speed/direction during the time of the max. temp., for all the different districts of each state (Victoria, New South Wales, etc..), combined with different drought and antecedent soil and vegetative moisture factors. From these, a rating is derived, a number with ranges broken into categories, 0-10 is Low, 11-20 Moderate, 21-34 High, 35-49 Very High, and 50 or more, Extreme. If a value of 50 or more is calculated for the next day's Fire Danger Rating, a Fire WeatherWarning is issued, since the Fire Danger will be Extreme, as well as a Total Fire Ban, restricting any outdoor burning.

You might remember now, two years ago, hearing or reading about the "bushfires" (the Australian term for wildfires) of February 2009 in the state of Victoria. The worst natural disaster ever to have befallen the country since it's founding. 173 fatalaties, thousands of homes and other structures, and even entire small towns, burned over. In excess of 365,000 hectares (900,000 acres) burned on the two worst days, 07 and 08 February.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Victorian_bushfires

Why did this happen, and what can be learned from this tragedy?

Drought conditions had been widespread in Southeast Australia for more than a decade. This is thought to be one of the manifestations of global warming. Because Australia is predominantly desert, with only small temperate margins on the southern fringes, these fringe areas are highly vulnerable. Climatic warming in summer is manifesting, and will continue to, as an increase of these heat waves in summer, with longer periods between cloudy and cooler weather caused by the passage of low pressure systems in the southern jet stream in the 40-60 degrees south latitude band. So, large areas of the Eucalypt forests had been moisture-stressed for many years.

Added to this then, an exceptional heat wave occurred in late January and February 2009. All-time maximum temperature records were broken in many areas across the states of Victoria and Tasmania during this time, including the in second largest Australian city of Melbourne, which reached 116F (46.4C) on 07 Feb. The period of record there is 154 years.

          

These graphics show the departure from average of maximum temperatures during the two stages of the heat wave.  27-31 January, and, the hottest day ever recorded at many sites in Victoria, 07 February, 2009.

The image, left, is from the Melbourne doppler weather radar, showing two of the large fire plumes on 07 February, 2009. On this day, the largest fire plume extended up to 18 KM, or 59,000 feet! Into the stratosphere. And it generated dozens of lightning strikes, which started more fires. The moisture release from the combustion of the vegetation, combined with the extremely strong updrafts in fire plumes, creates a "pyrocumulus" cloud, over larger fires. These are essentially thunderstorms in the stronger cases, and so may even produce hail and rain, besides lightning.
Following is the lead page from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's weather factors report of the tragedy:

"Victoria experienced extreme fire weather conditions on Saturday 7 February that led to the tragic losses. A region of extremely hot air had persisted over inland South-eastern Australia since the last week of January and had resulted in several temperature records being exceeded.

The presence of a slow-moving high pressure system in the Tasman Sea, combined with an active monsoon trough, provided the conditions for dry hot air of tropical origin to be directed over the southern parts of the continent. On Saturday strong northerly winds, ahead of an approaching cooler south-westerly change, brought this hot air to southern Victoria. The combination of strong and gusty winds, low humidity and record high temperatures led to extreme fire conditions ahead of the change, while the change in wind direction exacerbated the dangers in fire behaviour.

The day was mostly sunny throughout Victoria, although some mid-level cloud did affect the southwest coast. The most extreme weather conditions were observed in the afternoon shortly ahead of the wind change. Maximum temperatures were up to 23 degrees (Celsius!) above the February average, and for many centres it was the hottest day on record. Melbourne city recorded 46.4°C, its highest maximum temperature since records began. Other places in the Port Phillip region recorded even higher temperatures including Avalon, which recorded 47.9°C. Victoria’s highest official recorded temperature on Saturday was 48.8°C (120 F) at Hopetoun in the Mallee region.

Wind gusts to 115 km/h were reported at Mt William and Mt Gellibrand, while gusts over 90 km/h were recorded at a number of sites including Port Fairy, Aireys Inlet, Kilmore Gap, Dunns Hill and Mt Hotham. After the change wind speeds in excess of 50 km/h continued to be observed for some hours."

As mentioned earlier, daily fire danger ratings of 50 or more, are considered extreme. On 07 February, 2009, with temperatures of 38-47C (100-117F), relative humidities of 3-8 %, and winds of 36-60 kph (20-40 mph) or more, unprecedented values occurred. Fire danger ratings of 120 to 300 were recorded!
 
This created incredible fire behavior. This image above shows the remains of melted car wheels. To melt these aluminum alloy rims took temperatures of 900C (1650F) or higher. I saw the same thing when I worked at the South Canyon fire in Colorado in 1994, when 14 firefighters were killed. Ten of them were overtaken by a fire with temperatures like that, and where they fell was marked by the melted remains of their pulaski shovels. Many of the fatalities on 07 February, 2009 occurred when people in their autos were overtaken on windy, narrow forested roads, by the fast-moving fires. Unimaginably terrifying and horrific occurrences of people being incinerated in their autos while bystanders/rescuers watched, but couldn't make it in time to their rescue, were reported.

So, to sum up what happened in February, 2009 in Victoria, ten years of drought conditions, combined with an unprecedented heat wave, led to Australia's worst ever natural disaster, in terms of fatalities.

Unfortunately, climate change researchers using the most powerful computing facilities and most detailed global weather/climate modeling systems, are now saying that heat waves this severe, instead of occurring every few decades, will, within 30 years, be occurring every summer in Australia. A 2007 CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia’s equivalent to our National Science Foundation) study said there could be up to 65 percent more "extreme" fire-danger days compared with 1990, and that by 2050 — under the most severe warming scenarios — there could be a 300 percent increase in fire danger. http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2137

RUSSIA JULY-AUGUST 2010:

Alaska’s slightly above-average 2010 wildfire season of 1.12 million acres paled in comparison and effect to that which occurred in Russia last July and August.

“Russian authorities estimate that at least 700 people per day have been dying due to the heat and poor air quality. This event may eventually rival the 2003 European heat wave, which contributed to the deaths of an estimated 40,000 people. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, heat and poor air quality pose significant health risks to the elderly, persons with respiratory ailments, and other segments of the population.”  http://www.climatecentral.org/blog/unique-view-of-russian-wildfires/

Russia endured it's worst-ever measured drought/summer heat wave in summer 2010. Which accelerated wildfire outbreaks west of the Urals in it's more heavily populated European section, including even near Moscow. The normal mortality rate in Moscow more than doubled then, due to the heat, and dangerously unhealthy air quality. 

The Russian wheat harvest sustained a loss of at least one-third, because of this. And for this reason, their government suspended wheat exports, so that there will be an adequate supply for their own population.   http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/06-7

The price of wheat rose 88 percent on the international grain market after that, as a result, since Russia is the globe's fourth largest exporter of it.

What caused the severe drought/heat wave/wildfire outbreaks in Russia in July and August 2010? The same thing that causes them here in Alaska. Anomalously strong and persistent high pressure ridging, which pushes very warm air northward from the tropics and subtropics, to the high latitudes. This is the pattern that in the middle and high latitudes that has been increasing over the past few decades with global warming, as more heat is pushed northward, in order to try and maintain a global heat balance. We found this image to be very illustrative, from 01 August, 2010. This is a 500 millibar analysis (the height at which the pressure equals 500 mb, which is a function of the airmass temperature, usually between 5500 and 5800 meters in summer) overlain with the temperature at the 850 mb level (roughly 1500 meters).

This very strong high pressure ridge (on the far right portion of the image), extending well north beyond 65 degrees north (Moscow is at about 56 degrees N latitude), has 850 mb temperatures exceeding 20C north to just past 60 deg. N. The highest-ever measured 850 mb temperature in Interior Alaska has been 20C (68F). This is why surface high temperatures in European Russia reached 30-40C (86-104F) for several weeks this past summer, 8-15C above average (the average high temperature in July in Moscow is a comfortable 24C, or 75F), and why there has been very little rainfall, as this pattern was in place for almost all of July, and through the first half of August, 2010. It is estimated that Moscow’ July 2010 temperatures were the warmest ever measured during the past 130 years of record. Statistically speaking, using standardized standard deviations of the average temperatures, they were four time greater than the expected variability of July’s historical fluctuations about their long-term mean. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/19/ 

ALASKA:  SUMMER 2004...AND BEYOND
Let's take a quick look at what happened here in Alaska during the summer of 2004. The may-august average temperature was 16.2C (61.2F), about 3.2C (6F)above average. It was also the 3rd driest ever over most of the Alaska interior, the month of August, normally the wettest, was nearly rainless. Extreme drought stress occurred in the boreal forest species, black and white spruce, and birch/aspen/balsam poplar. So much so, that even the deciduous hardwood trees exhibited fire behaviour approaching that of the normally flammable black spruce (referred to by Alaska wildland firefighters as "gasoline on a stick"). [8]

When forecasting weather, meteorologists assess temperatures, humidities, and winds at different standard levels of the atmosphere, which are measured twice-daily world-wide by radiosonde balloons. This data is input to the Numerical Weather Prediction models, which model the atmosphere through hundreds of quantitative descriptors of physical processes, using trillions of calculations per second, on supercomputers. These models generate forecast charts out to ten days of various levels in the atmosphere (though only the first 3-5 days are usually very accurate). One of these standard levels that is assessed is 850 millibars (mb). The main parameter assessed is the height at which the pressure equals 850 mb, which usually around 1450-1550 metres (4600-5100 feet) here in Alaska, in summer. 
This plot, above, is of 850 mb temperatures from March 2008 to March 2009, measured by radiosonde balloons released from Fairbanks, along with means, records, and standard deviations, for each day. The period of record for those is from 1948-present. One thing that stands out, is how variable these are, due to our large inter-annual and seasonal variability. The warmest measured 850 mb temperature over Fairbanks was 19C (66F), in June 1969, on a day when the surface temperature in Fairbanks reached 35.5C (96F).

The most active several days during the record-breaking 2004 Alaska fire season were during a northeast-wind event in late June and early July. 850 mb temperatures at this time were around 16C (61F). [5] Remember, this is at 1500 metres. When air is forced to descend, as it does during high-pressure ridging episodes like the northeast wind-event of late June/early July 2004, it warms at 10 degrees C per 1000 metres. Thus, if the 16C air at 1500 metres descends to near sea level (much of the Alaska interior is at elevations of only 60-250 metres msl), it would theoretically warm to 31C (88F). Factor in solar heating of the ground, and you can add a degree or two. Temperatures weren't quite that warm on those days in 2004, because thick smoke blown out ahead of the fires shaded the region, and kept temperatures 3-6C cooler.
This chart, above, is from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. This report was an internationally collaborative study of climate change that has already occurred in the Arctic, combined with climate change modeling depictions of future changes.

Many of the researchers involved work in Fairbanks at the University of Alaska. [2]

What this is showing, is that by 2050, the average of the different climate change models predicts a 2.5 degrees C or so (4.5 degrees F) average warming over the Arctic region, based on current fossil-fuel emissions scenarios, and expected positive climatic feedbacks (such as globally increased wildfire acreages releasing more CO2, contributing to more warming, etc..) .

What does this mean for interior Alaska? Well, if we currently could experience a 19C temperature at 850 mb during an extreme warm spell/high pressure ridging episode, in 2050, that would likely be 22C, or more, in a similar event. That would translate to lower-elevation temperatures in the mid 30s to low 40s C (95-105F)! In addition, if the average may-august summer temperatures around Fairbanks warm from the current 13.5C or so (57F), to 16C (61F), the health of the spruce forests will be compromised.

White and black spruce in the Alaska boreal forests shut down their growth when average growing-season temperatures reach 16C, and become vulnerable to insect predation and disease mortality.[2] So, with temperatures in the 30s to low 40s C (95-105F), and large swaths of dead and dying spruce trees, in another 2004-like drought year, I think it would be safe to say that unprecedented fire behavior would occur in Alaska. 

It's not a matter of if, but when this will occur. We’ve seen the trend in our wildfire acreages, 2004 is still an outlier, statistically speaking, but in a few decades, it will not be. Eventually though, there will be less flammable acreage capable of burning, as more of the fire-prone black and white spruce species are replaced by more drought/heat tolerant deciduous species like aspen and balsam poplar, and even grass and sagebrush, on warmer, drier, low-elevation south and west-facing slopes.  

References:
1. 
1. RF Spielhagen, K Werner, SA Sørensen, S Aagaard, K Zamelczyk, E Kandiano, G Budeus, K Husum, TM Marchitto, and M Hald. Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water. Science 331, 6016: 450-453 (2010).

2. ACIA; 2005. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, 1042p.
http://www.acia.uaf.edu

3.  3. Juday, G.P., Boreal Forests and Climate Change. Changes in Climate Parameters and Some Responses.
www.libraryindex.com/pages/3196

4. Leahy, S., Arctic Defrost Dumping Snow and Ice on U.S. and Europe. IPS-Inter Press Service. 1/28/2011, http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/01/28-7

5. Richmond, M., Shy, T., (2005) An Extraordinary Summer in the Interior of Alaska. Proc. 85th AMS Annual Meeting, P3.24, San Diego, CA, 9-13 January 2005

6. Turetsky, R.M., et al., Recent Acceleration of Biomass Burning and Carbon Losses
in Alaskan Forests and Peatlands. Nature Geoscience, DOI:10.1038/NGEO1027 (2010).

7. Wendler, G., and Shulski, M. A Century of Climate Change for Fairbanks, Alaska. Arctic, 
    Vol.62, No.3 (September 2009) P.295-300

8. Wendler, G., et al. Climatology of Alaskan Wildfires With Special Emphasis on the Extreme 
    Year of 2004. Theoretical Applied Climatology, DOI 10.1007/s00704-010-0357-9

9. Westerling, A.L., et al., Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire 
     Activity. Science 313, 1126: 940-943 (2006)

So there you have it, we always greatly anticipate each new fire season here in Alaska,because
they are all so different. So what is our prediction for the 2011 season? Well, we are predicting
between 1.0 and 1.22 million hectares (2.5 and 3.0 million acres) this year. How did we come
up with this? Well, let's just wait and see what transpires, and then after the season is over, we'll let you know.

                     FUKUSHIMA UPDATE 

Japan To Raise Nuke Accident Severity Level to Highest 7 from 5 Only 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe ever rated 7

UPDATE: Japan has now decided to raise the severity level of the accident at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to 7, the highest on an international scale, from the current 5, government sources said Tuesday.


The current provisional evaluation of 5 is at the same level as the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979.

The Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan released a preliminary calculation Monday saying that the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant had been releasing up to 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials per hour at some point after a massive quake and tsunami hit northeastern Japan on March 11.

The disclosure prompted the government to consider raising the accident's severity level to 7, the worst on an international scale, from the current 5, government sources said. The level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale has only been applied to the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe.

The current provisional evaluation of 5 is at the same level as the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979.

According to an evaluation by the INES, level 7 accidents correspond with a release into the external environment radioactive materials equal to more than tens of thousands terabecquerels of radioactive iodine 131. One terabecquerel equals 1 trillion becquerels.

Haruki Madarame, chairman of the commission, which is a government panel, said it has estimated that the release of 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials per hour continued for several hours.

The commission says the release has since come down to under 1 terabecquerel per hour and said that it is still examining the total amount of radioactive materials released.

The commission also released a preliminary calculation for the cumulative amount of external exposure to radiation, saying it exceeded the yearly limit of 1 millisieverts in areas extending more than 60 kilometers to the northwest of the plant and about 40 km to the south-southwest of the plant.

It encompasses the cities of Fukushima, Date, Soma, Minamisoma, and Iwaki, which are all in Fukushima Prefecture, and some areas including the town of Hirono in the prefecture.

Within a 20-km exclusion zone set by the government, the amount varied from under 1 millisieverts to 100 millisieverts or more, and in the 20-30 km radius ring where residents are asked to stay indoors, it came to under 50 millisieverts.

The commission used the System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information to calculate the spread of radiation.    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/11-12

It's clear from this deliberately obfuscatory story that things are not going well at the Fukushima nuclear reactor complex. We think it would be best now, to assume the worst, which is to say that at least one of the reactors, if not more, have actually melted down, and/or the spent fuel pools above them have caught fire and melted. And that this mess has/is working through the containment buildings, and out into the environment.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/11-4

And, as the above article shows, some of this radioactive fallout is being measured in the U.S., fortunately, at very low levels. Which is still not good, but it could be worse. For real, useful information about the hazards this can pose, and why we aren't being told the truth, again, we have to go the Physicians for Social Responsibility for accurate information. Dr. Helen Caldicott is one of the founding members of this important group, and she just wrote this, which, naturally, you will not find in any U.S. corporate media. 
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/11-10  

How Nuclear Apologists Mislead the World Over Radiation

Soon after the Fukushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima.

Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of "cherry-picking" data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools. Yet by reassuring the public that things aren't too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process.

To wit:
1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation 

Let me educate him.

The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1]

Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.

The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards.

2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.

3) Now let's turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.
Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful.

Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: "Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl."

4) Monbiot expresses surprise that a UN-affiliated body such as WHOmight be under the influence of the nuclear power industry, causing its reporting on nuclear power matters to be biased. And yet that is precisely the case.

In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."

After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA's founding papers state: "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."

Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the "anti-nuclear movement" who are "misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health."

[1] See, for example, WJ Schull, Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (New York: Wiley-Lis, 1995) and DE Thompson, K Mabuchi, E Ron, M Soda, M Tokunaga, S Ochikubo, S Sugimoto, T Ikeda, M Terasaki, S Izumi et al. "Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors, Part I: Solid tumors, 1958-1987" in Radiat Res 137:S17-S67 (1994).

[2] This process is called bioaccumulation and comes in two subtypes as well, bioconcentration and biomagnification. For more information see: J.U. Clark and V.A. McFarland, Assessing Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Contaminated Sediments, Miscellaneous Paper D-91-2 (1991), Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and H.A. Vanderplog, D.C. Parzyck, W.H. Wilcox, J.R. Kercher, and S.V. Kaye, Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ORNL-5002 (1975), Environmental Sciences Division Publication, Number 783, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

Helen Caldicott
Helen Caldicott is president of the Helen Caldicott Foundation for a Nuclear-Free Planet and the author of Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

We do wish to remind you, that when our geiger counter arrives, we'll be measuring all of our food purchases at stores, and restaurants, as well as taking ambient air readings, to see if there is any measurable fallout here in south-central Alaska. Welcome to the 21st century. Cheers.