Here's to Fracking Fukushima

This blog is about saving the sweet life (aka optimizing global pleasure) through well-informed, aesthetically tuned, and ethically motivated acts. Although the sweet life might be conceptually opposed to the sour life, in reality, they are as deeply connected as the waters of currents running through the one big ocean that has mothered us all. 

Since beginnings and endings are usually remarkable, let's end 2013 with a toast to optimizing global pleasure. Global pleasure is the aggregate of what gives pleasure to each one of us on this earth, minus all of the pain. For purposes of a toast that embodies the good life and its practices, such as preserving vibrant ecosystems, the beauty of biodiversity, good friends, food, and community-- Would you choose  Champagne Krug Clos D'Ambonnay 1996, from Champagne, France, with a rating by Gayot of 19/20 and a cost of $2200 or Schramsberg 2008 Blanc de Noirs  from the North Coast, California, priced at $41 and rated 14.5/20? Each of us would need to inform ourselves regarding the main values entering into this goal and optimization process, then weigh key factors to determine which best serves our goals:  wine characteristics vs price vs quality against sustainability concerns against resources against belief in the value behind such a high price in the context of a New Year's celebration with friends who are ecologically-committed and wine enthusiasts.  Then we would sum up the results and choose a champagne, feeling all the while that we are saving the sweet life one sip at a time. Probably the very first thing we might ask ourself is why should I care? How are I and my loved ones living in Santa Barbara in fact seriously affected by Fukushima?

 

Degrees of Separation 

Especially in this Internet-connected atomic age, none of us is completely separated from the other. While the Fukushima meltdown happened far away, it affects us intimately in diverse ways here in Santa Barbara. We are both directly affected by the transport of radioactivity in material forms such as air, water, marine life and food, and we are also indirectly affected by characteristics of the event that affect our daily decisions, such as unconscionably poor reporting by individuals and agencies as well as the the lies and deliberate obfuscation of outcomes from this and other nuclear events. For reasons why, just follow the money.  Money, status, fears for the future of self and family, ignorance, presumption, diversity of perspectives and knowledge, uncertainty, complexity, and radioactivity all play a part in how nuclear events affect us.

One month after the meltdown at Fukushima all kelp tested off the California coast from San Diego through Santa Barbara to Santa Cruz revealed Iodine-131, a short-lived radioactive isotope, with increases as much as 250 times previous levels. Because kelp concentrates iodine, it can serve as a canary in a coal mine, warning biologists of possibly dangerous increases in radioactivity. The quotes below reflect a similar situation: the possibility that the Fukushima meltdown is contaminating our bodies through our food supplies. While none of these reports should be treated as scientific reports, neither should they be dismissed without consideration.

The phenomenon of the independent watchdog is extremely valuable although no one source can be considered authoritative, highly informative, or consistently well-supported by reliable, comprehensible scientific evidence. The reports of radioactivity in California marine life cited below typify areas of uncertainty and confusion. Stating that levels of radiation were about the same as those measured after Chernobyl is not informative, although Chernobyl is the definitive standard for radioactivity after a catastrophic nuclear event, which will be briefly explained in the next post. Very few informed readers understand what dangerous level of Becquerels might be, let alone how to interpret a Becquerel per gram. The first excerpt is from a post on April 2012 for an ABC News blog:

"Kelp along the California coast was found to be contaminated with radioactive material from a nuclear plant damaged in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan, according to a recent study.

Researchers at California State University, Long Beach found that the kelp contained radioactive iodine, cesium, xenon and other particles at levels unlikely to be detrimental to human health but much higher than the amounts measured before the disaster.

The levels were also about the same as those measured in British Columbia and Washington State after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion.

The researchers also expressed worry that the radioactivity could have made it into the coastal food chain, although they weren’t sure what impact that could have.

“Radioactivity is taken up by the kelp, and anything that feeds on the kelp will be exposed to this also,” said co-author Steven Manley in a news release.

Medical experts, however, said the disaster’s impact on U.S. public health was likely insignificant. " 

"Santa Cruz had the next highest level, with 2 Becquerel per gram. The concentrations in Santa Barbara and Pacific Grove were significantly lower, under 1 Becquerel.

When kelp from the same California sites was resampled a month later, in May 2011, it contained no detectable amounts of radioactive iodine.

Some radioactive material probably accumulated in fish that eat the kelp, including opaleye,  halfmoon and senorita."http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Fukushima-radiation-found-in-California-kelp-3466414.php

...in 2012, the Vancouver Sun reported that cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada…

• 73 percent of mackerel tested

• 91 percent of the halibut

• 92 percent of the sardines

• 93 percent of the tuna and eel 

Currents transporting radioactive elements either in the water or in marine life start with the Kuroshio, just off the coast of Japan, a few degrees latitude north of Fukushima, at 40 degrees north latitude. The Kuroshio Current merges there with the Oyashio Current, where these waters become known as the North Pacific Current. The North Pacific Current flows east to the Pacific West Coast, where it again splits to form the Alaska current, heading north, and the California Current, going south. Whatever is in the water gets diluted , that is true, but transported nonetheless.  From the best information, radioactive materials continue to be discharged from Fukushima into currents that have been carrying these toxic elements home to Santa Barbara and residents.

 

Bluefin Tun Exemplify One Degree of Separation

Riding currents, Bluefin tuna travel back and forth between Japan and California. Sometimes they spawn off Fukushima, then migrate to the West coast to feed and reproduce. Bluefin tuna caught since Fukushima's meltdown all show increased levels of radiation, specifically, cesium 134 and 137, both recent artificial products of nuclear fission, discussed in the next post. Migratory species such as salmon and Pacific herring, species not as well tested for radioactive isotopes as tuna, which can fetch prices as high 1.8 million dollars for a bluefin of 222 kg at the Tokyo market in as January of 2013, ,also range between Japan and the west Coast. What does this mean to residents of Santa Barbara--fish, people, water, plants, and other species that live in the water, the air or the soil? As a rule, we are motivated to protect our family and homeland, but in a nuclear age, homeland is virtually without borders.


How is Fukushima threatening the good life of Santa Barbara residents? Why is there so much disagreement and confusion about the outcomes of nuclear meltdowns and melt-throughs? What can be done to preserve and restore quality of life?

Knowledge is Power-Potential

Understanding nuclear events is challenging. Knowledge about what happens after nuclear events tends first to be kept behind closed doors by those most likely to be held accountable (usually corporate and government powers). Second, the language used to report nuclear events is replete with confusing terms. Third, human nature is such that after a few exposures to confusing often contradictory reports, we humans begin to avoid the entire issue, as too frustrating. In the next post we address the key concepts and contexts of nuclear events with which we must become familiar in order to assume responsibility and control over our nuclear future. We will try to follow Einstein's guideline of making everything as simple as it can be but no simpler.


The next post introduces and explains key concepts important for the process of assuming responsibility and control over the quality of our lives here in Santa Barbara, using Fukushima as an example of a catastrophic nuclear event. Meanwhile, Here's to fracking Fukushima.

Apex Predators to Alpha Stewards

Siberian hunter celebrating his skills: a Beluga sturgeon, an endangered species, who once lived to beyond 100 years but now rarely reaches 20.

The new alpha stewards of our global ecosystem evolve from the old apex-predators. Both are at the top of their games; both are leaders and innovators. Apex predators are at the top of food webs and chains: they hunt and kill living organisms for food, since they cannot produce their own from sunlight and carbon dioxide, like primary producers, who are at the bottom of all food chains. (The only value attributed to top and bottom is that the bottom is the base, without which the top is untenable.).  Carnivores, herbivores, omnivores all kill living creatures in order to survive, and none is more responsible nor superior to the others. Alpha stewards are, in a way, above all the food chains and webs. They occupy a niche that is trans-categorical. Their responsibility is to preserve and restore the vibrancy, source of all former/extant aesthetics, to our myriad, interconnected ecosystems across the earth.

Alpha stewards understand that they are leaders and that leaders must lead (knowledgeably and responsibly) and demonstrate processes that result in sustainable ecosystems or try to discover which processes are most likely to be sustainable and aesthetic. Sustainable simply suggests continuity, while aesthetics is about quality: the best elements linked in the best ways in the most desirable networks for the best outcomes. (These posts in this website are about sustaining and restoring best quality of life for all living creatures.)

The focus of the Santa Barbara Stewardship Aesthetic is for now on probable leaders of this transformation, which needs to occur quickly and not according to evolutionary time-frames.The target leaders of this website belong to the Santa Barbara fine-wine community. As a rule, they appreciate top quality; they understand many of the factors that affect quality, such as vine adaptability, weather, soil, bottling times and methods, etc., and they have both resources and passion for preserving quality.

The next post in this five-part series is about the nature and methodology of stewardship in 2013.

Shepherding Shared Stewardship: Whole Foods Leads the Flock

 Shared Stewardship and Supermarkets

This blog is about saving the good life, not just for those who make more than $250,000 and already are living it,  but for all of us. We maintain that the goal of living a better life is the engine that drives our species. Without that motivation, we are like sheep without a shepherd on a rocky mountain path.

Best quality of future life might still be possible if we all become wiser and start making the best decisions/actions possible to support a vibrant global ecosystem. Good decision-making requires commitment, relevant high quality data that is up-to-the-moment and science-based, and collaboration among producers and consumers (as a simple but useful distinction that includes every living creature).


Leaving aside for the moment both commitment and collaboration, the issue of acquiring good data seems like it might be a no-brainer. Performance metrics are as plentiful as French Fries. Raters of performance are as common as catsup. Relatively recent but multiplying rapidly is the flock that rates the raters. Several posts in this blog either rate raters or explore ratings, the most recent of which considered Greenpeace's rating of Safeway as #1 among supermarkets for seafood sustainability.

Keeping em Honest

Greenpeace is " the largest independent direct-action environmental organization in the world" and arguably, the most deservedly widely respected environmental-educator in the world. Their stated goal is to ensure the ability of Earth to nurture life in all its diversity. While their means are diverse, principal among these is to publish documents online that inform the public of what is happening ecologically, who is causing what, and what each of us can do to control the damage. The purpose of these publications is educational: to change attitudes and support behaviors that are ecologically sustainable. The assumption made and shared in this blog is that well-informed consumers can use purchasing power to encourage supermarkets to develop more sustainable practices, which in turn might preserve quality of life for us all, humans, fish, phytoplankton and others.

One of these publications is their supermarket seafood sustainability scorecard published annually. A rating of #1 should reflect top performance in sustainability practices, according to Greenpeace. Intuitively, a consumer who knows that Greenpeace rated Safeway #1 in the US might have confidence in buying seafood at Safeway or its subsidiaries, i.e., in the Santa Barbara area, Von's. In my last post I made a trip to Von's at La Cumbre with the question in mind "Are the fish at Von's sustainable?"  Are there guides to help me choose the most sustainable? A second question was "Does educating the consumer appear to be a top priority with the supermarket rated #1 by Greenpeace for sustainability?" My answer to both questions is no. Taken aback, I decided to check out the nearby Whole Foods, rated #4 by Greenpeace.

Is Whole Foods Shepherding the Stewards?

On December 12 I visited Whole Foods on State Street with the same questions asked at Von's: Does the supermarket clue the consumer as to which choices are most ecologically sustainable? Is there an attempt made to educate the consumer?

While both Safeway and Wholefoods have demonstrated leadership in seafood sustainability, leadership is no guarantee of global guidance. Locally, Von's failed the test of guidance, while Wholefoods surpassed.  At Wholefoods every fish displayed is rated according to the Marine Stewardship Council criteria for sustainability either yellow, meaning some issues, or green, meaning a good choice. The fishmonger at the Santa Barbara Wholefoods was well-informed and informative. No red-listed fish were being marketed. A sign was posted stating that Wholefoods had reached their sustainability goal of marketing only green or yellow seafood ahead of schedule and at present all foods sold there are considered good choices.

Accountability through Comprehensive Transparent Disclosure

Each post in this blog is designed to increase awareness of how dependent quality of life is on biodiversity. Each post is a kind of online report of how beauty and vibrant ecosystems are interdependent. Online reporting is advocated by this blogger as the premier channel through which consumers and producers can engage in a global learning community committed to sustaining  quality of life. Rating the reporters and their reports is equally part of the process of staying keenly aware of what is happening. The fact that Greenpeace rated Safeway #1 for seafood sustainability among supermarkets does not relieve consumers of the responsibility of keeping informed and alert and engaging fishmongers, managers or using online resources to register concern.