Transforming Disaster Relief

With the state the world is in today, many people forget the powerful forces of nature, thinking instead of only human caused problems. As it is with most major problems in our day and age, the only thing that makes the populous take notice of our unpreparedness is visible results, in this case, a major catastrophe. Two of the worst possible disasters in recent memory occurred in within only a year of one another, the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 and Hurricane Katrina, which occurred in 2005, and makes one wonder why the former disaster didn't bring attention to New Orleans glaring weaknesses in the face of storm conditions. Luckily, these disasters did bring certain problems into the light, and allowed people to work on fixing them. These new technologies at combating the issues of disaster relief efforts make up the brunt of the article, and help to give hope for more successful relief efforts in the future. Some recent advances, such as the Groove network, deal with logistical problems, such as getting information to all of the people who need it. The Groove network deals with this by setting up a peer to peer file sharing network, much like what is used by the program "Limewire", between all those who need to be kept in the loop, preventing the need for a central server. Other advances deal with infrastructure problems, since not every nation has access to wi-fi for an extremely advanced rescue team to connect to. To deal with a the destruction of or lack of infrastructure, the Netrelief Kit serves as a central hub for communications technology between relief workers. Other advances along these lines allow aid workers to stay in communication with each other and get help to those who really need it. Hopefully, once the next disaster comes along (and it's never a question of "if" but "when"), those afflicted can find some solace in the fact that disaster relief has finally mad the leap into the 21st century, and has learned from past mistakes to become faster and more effective than ever before.

- Eric

Disaster Relief

There is a great deal of things people have to worry about in the up and coming future. One of those things is the every increasing number of natural disasters. It’s not only the number of disaster but that of the tremendous power these disasters are forcing upon us. Every year the number of natural disaster increases so much it caught us with our pants down. There are many examples of this both on are country and abroad. During hurricane Katrina there was so many thing that both the government and the civilians living in the area could have done. The government could install a better early warning system. This would work with a team of civilians on the ground making sure that everyone is evacuated or is aware of the danger and up coming consciousness. Aboard there was the tsunami incident in the Pacific Ocean. Where uninformed people and a poor early warning system led to more lives to be lost then there should have been. There are people working on a solution for the problem. After each traumatic situation a new group of volunteers pop up to help there fellow man. Some of the group’s functions are to provide food or water, clothing or even a place to sleep at night. Even something as simple as a phone so they can call relatives and let them know they are alive and well. There are groups for rebuilding destroyed property, and even a group in charge of search and rescue. Some day soon I believe national disasters will no longer be such a large problem like they are today. 

James

Disaster Relief and response

As degradation of our infrastructure continues, governments and citizens alike need to attempt to be prepared as possible. The article talks about poor responses for Katrina, and how many factors built up and made the operation a complete disaster. Although we cannot predict when these disasters will occur, we can make sure an organized and prepared force is ready for action. This preparedness also includes investing in prevention, including structures such as bridges and highways. These are crucial in transporting rescue forces and getting people away from the areas effected by the disaster. Usage of new technologies is another way to ensure the most effective response to a disaster. Global positioning, using computers to make maps of areas that need rescuing or can provide aid, and using computers for instant communication can all help reduce the impact of a problem that occurs. Another big part of an operation could be corporations, which have the resources to help the masses. Tide has been at the forefront, providing laundry services to those who are not able to wash clothes. Little things like this can come through in a big way, not only helping victims but ensuring that aid will be provided when a problem strikes. The government can also increase this cause by ensuring and allocating more money for organizations like FEMA, and maybe even giving organizations money for expansion, such as the Red Cross. The other concern is always energy, and providing basic necessities to those in a disaster. The article does a good job and shows that Mobile has solved the problem. The MPS (Mobile Power Station) uses wind turbines, solar power, microturbines, batteries, and plug ins to provide over 150 kilowatts constantily. This can be dropped from helicopters and will make providing for refugees a less complicated task.
--->Steve

Big Green Building and skyscrapers

There is a loss of wonder and excitement from skyscrapers. These buildings are now becoming environmentally friendly or green. This would both clean the environment and be a popular sight for both locals and tourists. Dr. Yeang is in charge of projects such as this because his designs won the Ecological Design in the tropics. For irrigation these buildings use rain water and recycle waste water. The only thing holding this back is the initial cost of material. There are many institutions willing to deal with the high costs up front as long as they know they are helping to clean up the environment around us. There are many ways these building also pay for themselves in the long run. Some of these ways are with lighting from the sun the energy bill will be lower. One more is the proper use of ventilation the building will need less heat and air conditioning. This would save them a considerable amount of money.

In my opinion I think this is a great idea. Now instead of complaining about the problems people will be part of the solution. We could be doing this one building at a time and slowly reversing the damage we have done to the environment over the last thousand years. This would be good all around. It would look great and could even be a tourist attraction. It is a large building so a lot of work can be done on the inside jus like any other building. So I say we do as much as we can with what we have.

 James Hill

SUV article

The United States has an extremely steady flow of gasoline, putting it in a different position when compared to other nations. This is a major reason why we can afford to not only purchase, but drive "gas guzzlers" everywhere. These cars get a whopping ten miles to the gallon, and our country was founded on car corporations that pride in the oversized vehicle. Many SUV's have become a status symbol, having pathetic gas milage and realeasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then cars of smaller sizes. Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern nations that produce large amounts of oil can afford to purchase gas guzzlers also. This may be because they are increasing in wealth as a whole, or because they are the source of the gasoline industry. This shows that these nations have excess money to spend, and choose to purchase inefficient big cars rather than hybrids and smaller cars. Economic influence is proven in data and recent events, including when we got hit hard by the recession. Car companies and SUV dealers were hit extremely hard as people realized they were not only expensive but unworthy of thirty grand. Now a trend is starting to catch on, and cars like the Prius are beginning to outhsine bigger competitors like hummers and escalades. ALthough Prius's themselves might be considered a status symbol, it is competition between neighbors that is slowly conserving gasoline and reducing pollution. As people begin to see this, a shift in the automotive industry will likely develop. 

-------->steve turrisi

"Big and Bad" Article Response

One of the main reasons for the lack of popularity of S.U.V.s in countries other than America is the price of gasoline, coupled with less economic prosperity than what is (or at least was) experienced in the United States. The huge S.U.V. was a status symbol, it represented power, success, and affluence. The vehicle made the driver feel invincible in their giant steel cage (although, as the article has shown, the lack of mobility that accompanies such a huge vehicle can make them far more dangerous than smaller cars). When gas was as cheap as a dollar and a half per gallon, people were fine with gas mileages that were under ten miles per gallon, so long as people could see them in their brand new Expedition or Escalade. Take the Hummer as an example, the first edition of this S.U.V. was simply a painted over military vehicle meant to navigate war zones, now driven on civilian roads, and it sold incredibly well. The fact of the matter is, probably ninety-nine percent of the people who drive S.U.V.s don't have any need for a vehicle of that size (and I know this from experience, my mother owns an Explorer and it's just the two of us, plus throw in the fact that she's an engineer, so the heaviest thing she needs to carry in her truck is a set of rolled up building plans). The rest of the developed world has already recognized the lack of a market for such large vehicles, but Ford struck gold when their converted F-150, renamed the Expedition, sold so well for so long. Luckily, with the increase in the price of gas, coupled with the economic downturn, not everybody can afford to keep driving a gas guzzler, clearing the way for new, more fuel efficient cars, such as those that have been driven in Europe and Japan for years.

-Eric

"Green" Article Review

Obama Looking at Cooling Air to Fight Warming - Associated Press

This article took me by surprise when I first read it, as I had never even considered the existence of "global cooling", but now this radical idea is being considered as a weapon against global warming. Basically, global cooling, known as geoengineering, works like this: instead of releasing pollution particles into our air, as we do now (which reflects heat back onto our planet), we instead shoot them into the upper atmosphere, where they will do the opposite, reflecting the suns incoming rays. Of course, such a drastic measure is only to be used in a last ditch effort to avoid catastrophe, but the fact that such an idea is even on the table shows a sort of desperation on mankind's part to avert this disaster, which we have known about since the 1960's. The assistant to the president on science and technology, John Holdren, proposed the plan to Obama mainly because he doesn't see the United States and other developed nations reacting to the problem fast enough to prevent the "tipping points" that indicate real problems. One such "tipping point" is the complete dissappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic, which is expected to completely dissappear by 2050. However, such a drastic measure to save our planet doesn't come without risks, as the sulfur particles shot into the upper atmosphere may eat away at the ozone layer around the polar ice caps, but this doesn't even compare to possible side affects that scientists haven't factored into the equation. Overall, the fight against global warming looks to be in a sorry state. It could be too early to call, but if something isn't done in the next fifty years, there will be drastic environmental consequences, and even if something is done, it may already too late considering the damage that has already been done in the past 100+ years. My view may seem extremely pessimistic, but i find it hard to be optimistic for the future when so many problems have been shoveled onto my generations lap, seeing as the current generation doesn't seem to want to take responsibility now, opting instead to hold off on problems until there is a noticeable enough negative impact.

-Eric

i wrote this last blog...

steve typed this last article on picking an opposing opinion with the author, forgot to put name

differing with a point of view in article on war

On page 466 he says that as fossil fuel surpluses decrease, the United States remains unprepared. I disagree, and although we are not the leaders in this "green revolution", we are by far not sitting around. As we speak plants are producing solar panels and parts for windmills, nuclear power plants and the generators they house are producing fission reactions, and we are taking steps toward altering the way we produce and use energy. The next twenty years will result in very cheap alternative energies,allowing us to break free from our middle eastern oil addiction. The author also states that we are becoming more reliant on food from outside sources and nations, and again I have to disagree. The United States is toward the top of the food production list when it comes to food sources.  The United States processes over one third of the total food production in the world, This makes us stronger as a whole, and as technology grows even more, we will continue to maximize crop yields and corn crop production. The author is also forgetting that as we get greener, we will begin to export these technologies and those who install and utilize them will take the lead within the next decade, working on globally "greenifying" the world. We possess some of the most innovative attitudes in the world, and it is obvious the author is underestimating one of the strongest powers in the world. The United States is slowly but surely preparing for a future without fossil fuels.  

question 3 article on war

The United States and other nations are always trying to become independent and free from other nations resources. Providing your own resources, energy sources, food, and raw materials will benefit that countries economy in the long run. This prevents interactions and potential problems between countries, and the steady dollar value of the resource or service being provided. This is seen today as the United States tries to become free from middle eastern oil, as we try to rely less on China for economic support and stimulus, especially as developing nations try to utilize raw materials found in their own countries. Economic independence will provide more work for the workforce of that individual country, and a country non-relient does not have to worry about dramatic price increases, tariffs, and other exporting of good problems can also be avoided. It will also allow a developing nation to make more of its own choices, keeping them free from foreign culture, influence, and even rule. 

--->steve turrisi

more participation points mr white

-Climate Change Exhibit at the Museum of Natural History-

The Museum of Natural History recently opened an exhibit on global climate change. I was fortunate enough to experience it, and spent over 2 hours walking around in that section of the museum. The exhibit covered everything from alternative energy solutions to factors that are increasing global warming on our planet. Many factors that are not covered in main stream media were also talked about frequently. One dealt with the arctic, and how ice has frozen and melted throughout the history of Earth’s existence. One of the most interesting displays dealt with tilt, eccentricity, and rotation of the Earth, and how it impacts the weather significantly. If any of these are off by a fraction of a degree we experience changes in our external environments. It was predicted that the last ice age was caused due to the Earth changing from a circular orbit to a more ovular orbit. The polar bear habitat, loosing over 30,000 species a year, the increase of methane into the atmosphere from harvesting cows for consumption, then inefficiency of American Cars, the increase of Malaria and other diseases that rely on organisms that thrive in warmer weather conditions, and the reality that we are not going to be able to kick our fossil fuel addiction easily were all important issues discussed. Other interesting points were about community, and how one person has an extremely small impact.  A community banding together can alter and make our planet a better place to live with more of an impact. The reusing of materials and products seemed to be a reiterated theme, consistently being mentioned in areas anywhere from groundwater to industrial production. Green building and why it is important caused many to stop and learn about this revolutionary new construction practice. Coral Reef destruction, human overexpansion, and making our lives less energy consumptive made way for taking the first steps in stopping the problem. The reality of alternative energy solutions took up about a quarter of the display, and even had maximum percentages of global energy we could obtain from them. Solar was given 100 percent, with pictures of a “solar farm” in the deserts of California. Wind was given 20 percent, and discussed obstacles such as “eyesoreness”, limited space, a reasonable way to store energy produced, and small areas that are always windy. Water power and hydroelectric dams were given 15 percent, being limited by areas that have water flowing fast enough, while still reducing impact and destructiveness on habitats and marine species.  Capturing carbon as it is produced, and then injecting it under ground (“carbon capture”) was given 90 percent, but is considered expensive. The impacts of injecting it underground are also unknown and could be potentially harmful. Geothermal energy technologies were given 15 percent, mainly due to a lack of hot springs and because the process is dirty. Many of these percentages have increased due to a development in the technological fields, and a reduction in the price of these new revolutionary technologies.

-steve turrisi

Clearwater participation points mr white

The Clearwater was established in 1969, reinventing the way that people spread education about the river. This revolutionary ship began going up and down the Hudson, teaching and educating people of all ages. Pete Seeger and others united to keep a power plant from being constructed on Storm King, and then used that momentum toward tackling problems faced by the Hudson River. Although the Clearwater may focus on education as its main goal, the Clearwater has taken on other fronts. These have included run-off, pollution, invasive species, species extinction, and nuclear energies. Through many of these efforts, laws have been passed and regulations have been imposed. The EPA has also gotten General Electric to begin an analysis and cleanup of PCB's dumped over the last half decade. These combined efforts do not come cheap, and over the years Clearwater has developed ways of raising funds. The members of the organization, the Dyson Foundation, and organizational events have allowed them to raise significant funding. Along with gaining funding and taking on issues to resolve, the Clearwater has also gotten key legislation passed. In conjunction with other research organizations and New York State, the Clean Water Act was put into law. The Clearwater has become an organization with a strong sense of purpose. They have become a united group dedicated to education, and have succeeded in gaining reforms and environmental protections. This has allowed for a very prominent reputation and the ability to politically achieve their agenda.

-----steven turrisi 

The Failure of War

1.

After reading Wendell Berry's essay, "The Failure of War," write a 300 word response to question 3 under the topic Writing About Issues and Concerns.

2.

Berry makes several good points in essay, however he also only really offers one viewpoint on the subject of war.  Where can you find your own?  Though it need not be oppositional to Berry's, perhaps your perspective is more logical or persuasive. Choose one of Berry's points and challenge it against your own in no less than 250 words.

SURVIVING THE EXTREMES

Autobiographical Essay: Due 1/21/09

This is to be handed-in and please double space.  Late essays will be penalized 5pts. per day.

After reading the chapter "High Altitudes" from Surviving the Extremes, by Kenneth Kamler, M.D.,  write your own autobiographical outdoor adventure story as a descriptive narrative. As you write, include details of your physical reactions to the environment as well as your interior awareness to your experience.  Finish with a reflection on the story as a whole.

In addition to the story, please write a response to the chapter of no less than 300 words.

Surviving the Extremes