Lily's Geography Blog

GM Chickens

2011-01-20T12:10:00.000-08:00

UK scientists have created the first genentically modified chickens that cannot spread bird flu. The GM chickens were created by inserting an extra piece of DNA into their genomes which produced a 'decoy' molecule which blocks the replication of the influenza virus and prevents transmission to the rest of the flock.

Scientists believe that this genetic modification is harmless to the chickens and their consumers however much further research and approval from the Food Standards agency will be necessary before any of the GM produce is released into the market. If successful then this technique could be used to protect all farm animals from any disease with the hope that if fewer animals are carrying viruses then the chance of them mutating into a form that would be deadly to humans would be reduced, thus reducing the likelihood of a pandemic.

As the population of the world is continuing to increase, researchers believe that GM animals have the potential to increase food production and reduce costs. But does this override the potential ethical costs?

If this goes ahead then it is possible that even less attention will be paid to animal welfare as living conditions will not affect the risk of a virus spreading. Viruses and disease should not be a significant problem among animals with sufficient living space. This seems to almost be condoning intensive farming. On organic farms, diseases are much less common. Surely it would be better to adopt better farming practices to avoid animals getting diseases in the first place than to mass produce animals resistant to disease at the cost of their welfare.

The benefits are obvious however I believe that much thought needs to be taken before a decision is made. Even if it does go ahead, labelling the GM products will be paramount to enable customers to have a choice.

We have GM crops, but are GM animals a step too far?

BBC News article: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12181382

Do diseases change with progress?

2010-11-25T12:36:00.000-08:00

"Health is now higher on the international agenda than ever before and concern for the health of poor people is becoming a central issue in development." With the importance of health and development as indicators of progress for the worlds population comes the recognition of models as a way of comparing figures and making predictions.

The Demographic Transition Model is probably the most well-known model which illustrates the interrelationship between birth and death rates with development. The theory states that as a country develops, improved living conditions cause the birth rate and death rate to decline due to the decline in the prevalence of diseases. It does, however, assume that modernisation is the only form of development, and therefore does not take into account nutrition and healthcare. It has been criticised for this reason as it is based only on the experience of western countries and so is not an accurate way to make predictions for the whole world.

In 1971 Omran put forward the Epidemiological Transition Model which states that societies undergo three stages of health; an age of pestilence and famine, an age of receding pandemics and an age of degenerative diseases. He proposed that socio-economic development is responsible for the movement through these ages. It expects fertility and mortality to fall in the same way as the DTM but relates this more to health; rates will decline in more developed countries where non-communicable diseases are dominant. A medical revolution must occur for this to happen and this model therefore provides a useful reference point for exploring links between health and development.

The WHO devised a global classification of diseases in response to this. Group 1 includes infectious diseases, group 2 includes non-communicable diseases and group 3 are injury related. Apart from in sub-Saharan Africa, where group 1 diseases are responsible for 80% of the disease burden, generally group 2 diseases are the main causes of death , and the number of deaths from group 2 diseases are predicted, by the WHO, to increase significantly. Deaths from group 3 conditions are also expected to rise as road traffic accidents are expected to become more frequent with development.

The global Nutrition Transition, identified by Popkin in 2000, is based on the Global Health Transition suggesting that changes in nutritional status relate to socio-economic factors. This explains why developing countries such as China and Mexico have high levels of obesity as modern agriculture, and therefore less healthy diets, cause infectious diseases to be replaced by degenerative diseases. It also reminds us that development can have a negative effect on the health of the population of a country and is therefore important to consider.

Currently, most money is being spent on combating group 1 diseases and only 5% of the WHO's budget is being spent on non-communicable diseases. Having looked at a number of models, apart from AIDs the group 1 diseases are declining and it may therefore be important for the focus to change to combating group 2 and 3 conditions before they increase dramatically, as expected. Without this switch of focus, it is likely that the development of countries will be compromised.

China takes baby steps to close the gender gap

2010-09-19T07:39:00.000-07:00

Was last summer the beginning of the end of China's infamous one-child policy?

The one-child policy officially restricts the number of children married urban couples can have to just one (allowing exemptions for several cases: rural couples, ethnic minorities and parents without any siblings themselves). When introduced in 1978, the sole aim of the one-child policy was to control China's rapidly growing population and thus alleviate social, economic and environmental problems in China. Authorities claim that the policy has prevented more than 250 million births from its implementation in 2000 and therefore in some ways its success has been noted.

However, the policy has always been very controversial within and outside of China due to the way in which it has been rigourously implemented and has been challnged in principle and in practice for violating human rights. It has caused serious problems to arise which has lead to a re-think about its viability. It has been linked to an increase in forced abortions, female infanticide and underreporting of female births due to China's traditional bias towards male children and is therefore likely to be the cause of China's gender imbalance; the latest statistics show that for every 100 girls born, 119 boys are born. Not only does this mean that roughly 24 million Chinese men of marrying age could find themselves without spouses by 2020, but the growing imbalance means that forced prostitution and human trafficking has become "rampant" in some parts of the country.

China is also about to be hit by an "age wave"; last year, the number of those aged 60 and over increased by 7.25 million which will create serious economic problems if the number of workers begins to decline when expected in 3 to 5 years.

Another expected social problem is the creation of a generation of "little emperors"; it is thought that children in one-child families are indulged and will have porr social communication and cooperation skills. Ye Tingfang, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said "it is not healthy for children to play only with their parents and be spoiled by them: it is not right to limit the number to one child per family, either. The one-child limit is too extreme. It violates nature's law. And in the long run, this will lead to mother nature's revenge."

After the completion of a nationwide census in November this year, the government will permit large-scale experiments liberalising the policy. Without drastic changes, the population problems will contine to become more extreme and so China needs to find an alternative to the one child policy before the damage is irreversible. Only if equality of males and females is strongly promoted will the sustainable development of society be possible.

Texaco; Ecuador's Ecological Terrorist?

2010-02-03T14:06:00.000-08:00

The Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco battle continues, but with the judgement possibly just weeks away, what will the verdict be?Over a 26 year period between 1964 and 1990, whilst the exclusive operator of a large oil concession, Texaco, now Chevron, dumped 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon and left 917 waste pits filled with toxic sludge. This makes it the biggest oil spill in history, with 30 times more oil spilt than in the Exxon Valdrez disaster, and with a possible $27 billion in damages claims to pay this case has the potential to be the biggest case in the history of the oil industry. There are two sides to this case, but one thing's for sure, it was no accident. So is it fair to call this the "Chernobyl of the Rainforest"?

The case was filed against Texaco in federal court in New York in 1993, but after Texaco's 9 year fight to avaoid trial in the US, it was re-filed in Ecuador's "fair and adequate" court and the trial began in October 2003. The court appointed technical expert Richard Cabrera, assisted by a team of 14 scientists, found that 100% of Texaco's 94 former well sites show dangerous levels of cancer causing hydrocarbons. Chevron was primarily responsible for this. They are denying responsibility however the 62000 scientific sampling results say otherwise.

Cancer rates in the region where Texaco operated have risen exponentially, according to Cabrera's findings, destroying a region with such inadequate healthcare. It was estimated that the oil contamination caused 1041 excess deaths from cancer as well as many other cases which did not result in death. 5 indigenous groups in the region lost 95% of their ancestral land and their populations have been severly reduced. A 6th group, the Tetete, disappeared altogether. Aswell as the devastating impacts on human health, the environment was hugely affected. The oil contamination hugely affected local biodiversity and the pollution of many fresh water sources was dangerous for both humans and animals.

The huge number of samples and 25 scientific experts who gathered this evidence and support it, make the results pretty conclusive and difficult to argue against. Nevertheless Texaco have, of course, done this by denying accusations and launching a huge political and public relations campaign in order to prolong the case and avoid judgement.

In comparison to the huge company that is Chevron, the victims are extremely vulnerable as the people most affected are extremely poor. So far no mitigation whatsoever has been provided by Chevron, and although Ecuador's government and organisations, such as the Rainforest Foundation and UNICEF, are trying to provide clean water and help reverse some of the impacts, only a fraction of the damage is being addressed because of the country's lack of money.

Legally, it seems that Chevron may have a way to defend itself, claiming that Texaco was released from any responsibilty for further clean up after it "remediated" about 15% of it's 917 waste pits in the 1990s. Morally, however, the responsibility unquestionably belongs to Chevron. Even the "remediated" pits were not cleaned up; they were simply covered with dirt allowing cancer causing hydrocarbons to continue to leach into the soil and groundwater.

Despite the very clear relation between Chevron and the destruction of the Amazon, it is still not completely clear as to who will win the court case. Chevron were proven to have used an improper laboratory test when taking soil samples which allowed them to fake a result to appear innocent, however, they have a huge amount of money and therefore still have a chance of winning. Who should win the case is clear; Chevron has to pay the $27 billion to even begin to put right the damage they did. Nevertheless, it seems that in a case like this, it is not morals that matter, but money. There is no reason to say that the ruling will end the conflict; Chevron has promised a "lifetime of litigation" if it loses by dragging out the appeals process. Nonetheless, a decision in favour of the Amazonians will at least be a start.

The most frustrating thing about this case is that it needn't even have happened. Due to the lack of consideration for the surrounding environment when digging the pits for toxic waste (the necessary lining that would prevent leaching was completely disregarded), the contamination was predictable, infact inevitable and sad that it was also completely preventable.

Haiti Earthquake Devastates Thousands; but why?

2010-01-18T07:31:00.000-08:00

The earthquake was big, measuring 7 on the Richter scale, but the impact was catastrophic. Why was this country affected so seriously, when the impact of two recent similar-sized earthquakes in California does not even compare with the damage being inflicted upon Haitians right now?

The quake, which struck about 15km (10 miles) south-west of Port-au-Prince, on Tuesday 12th January, was quickly followed by two strong aftershocks of 5.9 and 5.5 magnitude. There is still no official word on casualties and the extent of the devastation is still unclear however predictions of the death toll are currently reaching 200,000 and there is no reason to say that this number could not increase. The earthquakes in California that happened in the last 30 years had this effect:

"The last major earthquake in the state occurred in the Northridge section of Los Angeles in 1994. The magnitude 6.7 earthquake damaged freeways, killed at least 70 people and did $20 million in damage. On the evening of 17 October 1989, a 6.9 magnitude quake hit the San Francisco and Monterey Bay regions. The 10-15 second tremor left 63 dead, more than 3,700 injured and thousands homeless".

Bad as these effects were, there is no comparison with the effects currently being felt by the people of Haiti. The reason for this difference is, however, very simple, and we can see this by looking at the equation:

Risk=Hazard Probability*Vulnerability

____________Mitigation

Hazard Probability: According to scientists using a new model to determine the probability of big earthquakes, in California there is currently a 99% likelihood that an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or higher will hit the area in the next 30 years. Although there are no such statistics for Haiti, its geographical position also makes it liable to earthquakes as it lies on a fault line, making the probability of an earthquake high.

Vulnerability: Both populations are vulnerable to earthquakes as the people live in areas susceptible to these hazards. However, mitigation hugely affects the vulnerabilty of the populations, and therefore the people of Haiti are at a huge disadvantage because of their lack of wealth.

Mitigation: California is a wealthy, developed state which has invested huge amounts of money into earthquake-proof buildings, and even if it were to be damaged by an earthquake, the government has large funds to support the recovering population. Whereas Haiti is an impoverished country which has invested almost nothing, and as this last earthquake has shown, it has no money of its own to help the victims recover and repair the damages. There have been numerous offerings of aid from other countries however again the lack of wealth has affected even this; poor infrastructure has meant that aid by air has had to be turned away, and its port, unprotected from earthquakes, has been blocked making aid via shipping also impossible. Its services are inadequate and its government completely unable to cope with the effects of an earthquake making it clear why Haiti has suffered much more severely than an MEDC would in the same situation.

Risk: As a result of the above, Haiti is at a much higher risk of being seriously affected by an earthquake than a place like California. The problem that needs to be addressed now is how can this be prevented from happening again in the future? Of course emergency aid is certainly required, however nothing other than a major transformation of the economy will prevent such tragedy again. Its economy must be developed and its living standards improved and there must also be concomitant social and political progress in order to balance the power between the Third World countries and more powerful Western countries; a relationship which is currently affecting the ability of poorer countries to grow and improve and therefore mitigate against natural disasters.

Earthquakes don't have to be this devastating, but big changes will have to be made by the whole world for the situation of poorly developed countries to improve.

click on the link below for more information: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7963/