Tis I the Student!

Student named Emiliano. Attending the University of New Mexico

[emilianothestudent]

Nuclear Savage Film Review.

           “Nuclear Savage” a documentary by Adam Horowitz takes the stories of the Marshallese and the tests inflicted upon them by the United States during the cold war. In the documentary Horowitz focuses on several Marshallese people actively trying to get the US to provide further compensation for those affected by radiation as well as for the un-consented participation in Project 4.1, the study of radioactive fallout on humans. Horowitz takes the film from Washington D.C. to Hawaii and the Marshall Islands to tell the story of the testing in the pacific, even going as far as to hound official US personnel for information.

Following the second world war the Marshall Islands was used as the pacific testing grounds for atomic weapons and the spread of radiation was a direct result from testing. After decades of testing the US left the islands as a sovereign country and with only a sparse amount of monetary compensation for any issues to arise due to the testing in the islands and atolls.

After the infamous Bravo Shot in the 1950’s Project 4.1 was initiated to study the effects of radiation of the islanders affected by fallout of the Bravo Shot. For one of the key elements of the documentary project 4.1 was repeated throughout the film until the hearing of it was more like background noise than the key concept  of direct effects of nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. The constant repetition of Project 4.1 begins to eat away towards Horowitz’s argument on its importance because the more it is repeated the information given about it is still the same as the first time. The focus on Project 4.1 also makes the argument on the detriment to the Marshall Islands from constant testing rendering dozens of atolls and islands unusable by the US as less concise. Focusing on a small cluster of islands affected by the Bravo Shot makes the point lost on the scale of testing done and damage inflicted on the islands that Horowitz tried to portray through his film. Along with the focus on project 4.1 the focus on Bravo Shot that was the initiation of project 4.1 distracts from the 66 other atomic tests done in the Marshall Islands. Horowitz makes the exposure to a single bomb more significant than the constant radioactive exposure of multiple atomic testing over a period of years and makes it seem as if the other tests contributed nothing to the ongoing radio-logical issues of the Marshall Islands.

Horowitz also seemed to make a lapse for the sake of his argument by his own narration and direct involvement in the film by harassing US representatives with trying to get them on film for an interview. The issue itself doesn’t come from the attempts at getting an interview but in Horowitz’s rejection of wanting to talk with the officials which would be fine with talking and having an interview without the camera involved. In refusing the offers for off camera interviews Horowitz biases his argument more by refusing to meet with the representatives.

In the same arm of biasing information declared in the documentary whenever Horowitz is presenting information that he has gathered there is no formal indication of a source for information. This proves to be detrimental when Horowitz begins narrating about secret meeting made by scientists in Los Alamos National Laboratories before the Bravo Shot on project 4.1. The claim that the meetings were held in secret comes hard to believe without a verified source of information to support the bold claim.

Another shortfall of the documentary is the constant usage of stock imaging in awkward and slower parts of the film when narrating something can take away significance of the images. The repetition of certain pieces of film as well take away from the information being given because of having seen the images before with different information can cause confusion when recalling information based on the film itself.

For a documentary at hand Horowitz makes a good attempt. The documentary is in good place as an introductory piece of informative film over what happened in the Marshall Islands. But the focusing on only one project and one bomb of the sixty-seven atomic weapons deployed in the Marshall Islands makes the documentary singular in purpose with project 4.1 as the headline. One last cause for concern over the information that affects the film is the lack thereof of information over the Marshall Islands testing past Bravo Shot.

[emilianothestudent]

Film Review Rough Draft

Nuclear Savage the documentary by Adam Horowitz takes into narrative the lives of Marshall Islanders that had survived pacific nuclear tests and the struggles of the Islanders afterwards due to prolonged radioactive exposure and experiments by the US government to examine said exposure. Following the history of the use of the Marshall Islands as testing grounds for the US during the cold war to the current status of an island leased to the US as a missile base from a defense project when the US was still in control of the islands. The documentary takes us from the islands to Hawaii and to DC in the struggle of the Marshallese people to get compensated by what they think they deserve from the US government to test them without their knowledge and to get more than the 150 million dollars bookmarked by the US government to settle all cases.

Nuclear Savage focuses on evidence and scenes to show the turmoil of the Islanders with only glancing or brief looks as to the counterargument and declarations of the US government over the testing done, either at time of testing or statements afterwards. Using a lot of stock footage to present the information with large gaps in quality or framing of film makes a disconnect for much of the information Horwitz is giving and the repetition of certain information without providing further evidence also gives the presented evidence with less importance as the repetition continues. IE Project 4.1, repeating stock footage of Kwajalein and repeating footage of his entrance to the Islands.

Not confirming sources where he found evidence towards “secret meetings” taking place by scientists before the testing had begun in the islands, given how the government would not release the documents pertaining to meetings like that without some process and without clearance. Focusing almost solely on project 4.1 hurts Horowitz’s argument pertaining to the severity of all the testing done in the Islands and by not giving more insight to other projects and experiments and repeating evidence for project 4.1 takes importance from it.

Horowitz’s refusal to speak to US officials off the camera and narrate new information he may have gained with paraphrasing the conversations still allowed for the focus of the argument and information of the documentary to rest on the Islanders and less on what the US had done and has been doing for or to the islands and Islanders today. Not acknowledging or presenting any facts for any data that may have been published by scientists or organizations involved with the testing in the Marshall Islands relative to projects done by the military or the effects of radiation on the human body may take some credibility from the documentary as a good source of information on the testing done by the US military.

Only mentioning in detail the Bravo shot that the US military did takes away from the 66 other nuclear tests done when briefly mentioned in the documentary and makes it seem as if only the one test had all of the detrimental effects to the island and not the prolonged exposure due to constant testing over a course of years. Instead of showing Horowitz putting his camera in the face of ambassadors and US representatives to attempt to show the refusal to give information when attempting for an interview a more effective way to have shown that is narration and filming of documents from a government source refusing to give information.

Horowitz own political ideologies involved in how the information he was able to obtain also have a large influence on how and what information he would want to portray. Admittance to involvement with a politically linked help group within the documentary acknowledges concerns I have made on the method of distribution of information in the film. A few of Horowitz’s claims seem like speculation based on personal judgment and less on facts presented such as the renaming of documents to show how the US government had premeditated the radiological exposure to the island natives.

The documentary was done well to give information but focused solely on one aspect of one test that was done over the course of the cold war in the Marshall Islands, I would focus on the lack of additional information on the additional tests of nuclear weapons as well as declaring the focus on the Islanders as the key point of the documentary. This hurts the overall message of the documentary by not providing enough information other than that of the islanders.

[emilianothestudent]

Literary Analysis Reflection

Reflecting on my use of rhetorical situation and genre over my literary analysis I came to see flaws. Through the course of writing the literary analysis past writing on the writings that I had found I made the attempt to try to include what gaps I could find within the individual pieces as I was writing the analysis. In writing this way the hope was to convey the additional holes in the writing that I had found on nuclear energy viability as a whole. Due to the concerns of Katelynn James review on the initial piece that was written I reassessed the argument and analysis and decided to add an additional piece of writing for the analysis. The additional piece added extended the word length of my analysis to meet a good area for the body of the analysis before coming to my conclusion section and allowed for an ease in collectivizing the analysis within the conclusion. Some additional input that was given by Katelynn was to tie in all the analysis together which influenced the conclusion in formatting.

Writing the literary analysis opened up the writing process further than with other pieces that I’ve written throughout the course. From building on continuous writing starting from the beginning of the section doing annotated bibliographies and doing research on my own for those annotated bibliographies. The process continued when having to make another annotated bibliography for the literary analysis before writing the analysis itself to get a better idea for the process and direction I was to take for the analysis. From there writing a rough draft just to get out most of the information out helped to see gaps in where my analysis failed to provide sufficient evidence which then helped the final product, again through some help of Katelynn.

[emilianothestudent]

Literary Analysis Rough Draft

Since the birth of the atomic age in the 1940’s nuclear power has been heralded as the future for energy and power for the future, or so it seemed. After a slew of incidents involving nuclear power and nuclear wastes that has been building up since the beginning of mining and refining of uranium, plutonium and other radioactive elements, the public has grown to disagree on the practicality and safety of nuclear power and nuclear reactors. Physicist Martin Sevior seems to disagree from an ecological and economical basis on emissions and provides empirical evidence from 2006 to support his claims, although some claims may be different with new technologies and discoveries made in the field of energy production. But why is it the question on viability for nuclear power when other forms of energy production are accepted and not scrutinized for viability? The answer lies more within the culture of nuclear power and atomic fascination with the people of the United States with the shifts on views of nuclear power over the course of the twentieth century.

Nuclear power as an energy source is no more risky or inefficient as other forms of power plants including alternative power but the tradeoff for economics of nuclear power is much higher than any other form of electrical generation due to considerable public opposition and cases of lawsuits which set back the line of profit for energy companies looking to explore nuclear power in the millions of dollars, making nuclear energy seem less wanted, or at least that is the case for nuclear power in the United States.

Due to the increasingly combated state of nuclear energy and the growing concern for the United States to cut emissions of carcinogens and carbon based emissions from fossil fuel burning plants and the increasing decommissioning of active nuclear plants without phasing out old technologies and processes with new ones. The related issues of nuclear power and cutting emissions both stem from similar roots but the opposition towards nuclear power still grows without large impacts on the accidents that have occurred in the past sixty years of nuclear power operations. To better expand on why nuclear power as a competitive alternative to fossil fuel sources of power is not looked at as an alternative while other sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower plants are in this literary analysis.

           In Banerjee’s article for the investigation into Los Alamos National Labs due to a whistleblower alerting the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability about practices in LANL showcase some irresponsible handling of waste production at the nuclear equipped scientific facility. In regards to the commentary within the posting of the article the words used by Banerjee seem condemning of nuclear energy as a whole and less on the actions of those few involved with the irresponsible acts, when nuclear research is now less than the majority of work done at LANL, in the wake of several disastrous wildfires in the region, one of which threatened to cause widespread contamination and radioactivity if the nuclear areas were threatened and destroyed by fire that could cause damage similar or worse to that of the Fukushima reactor earlier in 2014. Which was another cause for reluctance on the use for nuclear power, although the Fukushima incident was caused by natural disasters.

In Patrick Malone’s article on the WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) in south eastern New Mexico and the incident caused by LANL in which a container holding nuclear waste was improperly disposed of in the shipping process and was linked back to the laboratory from shipping manifests. The reason LANL had improperly disposed of was partially due to the time restraints set onto them by the DOE (department of energy) to clear the waste in LANL to retain it’s funding for the upcoming year. These restraints led to cutting corners and pushing LANL to take risks to preserve its funding, and although the incident was from nuclear waste the cause of it was not the waste itself but the funding and fear of losing it that caused the event which will cost millions out of the DOE to clean and fix to return the WIPP back to functioning order.

In William Hunter’s article he confronts the issue that nuclear waste has created in the difference in management and engineering between a fully engineered waste plant to handle nuclear waste and the Sandia Mixed Waste Landfill (MWL), including the $6 billion dollar Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) to the unlined open pits of the MWL. As a contrast in severe accidents the author highlights a preventable incident with a salt truck in the WIPP and an accidental fire that should not have happened with uranium chips at the MWL. With these points brought up the author brings up the lack of responsibility that Sandia National Labs (SNL) holds with the MWL and any form of cleanup after an attempt to protect the environment and nearby inhabitants created by the New Mexico Environmental Department, as well as other claims to fix or monitor the MWL that are either defunct or insufficient. Hunter also exhibits a lack of acknowledgment that the waste stored in the MWL was never an expected byproduct of nuclear waste because the work at SNL created mini reactor failures to see the result and the waste from those experiments was never encountered before and so there was no codes or regulations on storing of the waste at the time.

Contrastingly in Physics.org’s article on the completion of the cover for the SNLMWL which praised SNL for the correct actions on fulfilling the requirement to contain the landfill and to prevent the further spread of materials and was getting ready to fulfil reports every five years (before SNL got a waiver for this) on the status of the cover and the tracing of waste from the landfill as it was swept by the elements. With the completion of the project to maintain the landfill from opening or from being breached it was a chapter in the role of nuclear power following Three Mile Island and the reactor failure, which was contained by the safety structure, and the landfill was to serve as a resting place for controlled reactor meltdowns to see the effects on the reactor and the fuel rods which was funded by the DOE to see what safety concerns a reactor meltdown would actually have.

Sevior in his report mentions different costs per Kilowatt-hour of sources for fuel and stating nuclear sources of fuel as being the most cost efficient form of energy production at the time of 2006. Being a physicist with nuclear physics knowledge and a professor at a university in Melbourne, Australia, Sevior shows a side to nuclear power not seen in the general public which is for the expansion of nuclear power plants and states through similar events in France in which there is a net profit for nuclear power at only the equivalent of cents per tax dollar. Other factors include total carbon cost for obtaining the energy source, maintenance, and costs for waste disposal which would make nuclear energy the cheapest available source of power if it wasn’t for lawsuit cases and watchdog groups forcing costly delays and unnecessary halts to programs that then fuel coal and oil based power plants to be the main source of energy in the country, which also causes increased carbon emissions. By the end of the article post Sevior also acknowledges increased safety features to modern reactor designs that are currently being used as well as new advances to physics in recycling spent fuel rods after nearly a century and the continued effectiveness of re-refining spent rods in the future to not need to draw out as much uranium, although uranium is still in levels of concentration in the earth’s crust.

Through mediums of opinion and stories nuclear power still has a hold onto the strong judgments of the authors, whether it be praise or contempt for nuclear power when it goes to a person with closer working relations with nuclear power the option seems to clear up past opinion. As a source of energy nuclear power is equally as viable as any other source of energy although the strong opinions surrounding it make it a less than effective source of energy in the US because of the issues surrounding facilities. Waste and safety arise as issues although failures and safety concerns are those of up to sixty years ago with aged nuclear power plants and differences in the culture for safety concerning those issues, now which have been regulated on a more international scale and have new facilities with innate safety features. If nuclear power were allowed to step out of a zone of taboo in concerns and controversy to become economically feasible nuclear power would have a better standing at being a preferred method of power.

[emilianothestudent]

Literary Analysis On Nuclear Viability

Since the birth of the atomic age in the 1940’s nuclear power has been heralded as the future for energy and power for the future, or so it seemed. After a slew of incidents involving nuclear power and nuclear wastes that has been building up since the beginning of mining and refining of uranium, plutonium and other radioactive elements, the public has grown to disagree on the practicality and safety of nuclear power and nuclear reactors. Physicist Martin Sevior seems to disagree from an ecological and economical basis on emissions and provides empirical evidence from 2006 to support his claims, although some claims may be different with new technologies and discoveries made in the field of energy production. But why is it the question on viability for nuclear power when other forms of energy production are accepted and not scrutinized for viability? The answer lies more within the culture of nuclear power and atomic fascination with the people of the United States with the shifts on views of nuclear power over the course of the twentieth century.

Nuclear power as an energy source is no more risky or inefficient as other forms of power plants including alternative power but the tradeoff for economics of nuclear power is much higher than any other form of electrical generation due to considerable public opposition and cases of lawsuits which set back the line of profit for energy companies looking to explore nuclear power in the millions of dollars, making nuclear energy seem less wanted, or at least that is the case for nuclear power in the United States, almost making nuclear power unviable.

Due to the increasingly combated state of nuclear energy and the growing concern for the United States to cut emissions of carcinogens and carbon based emissions from fossil fuel burning plants and the increasing decommissioning of active nuclear plants without phasing out old technologies and processes with new ones. The related issues of nuclear power and cutting emissions both stem from similar roots but the opposition towards nuclear power still grows without large impacts on the accidents that have occurred in the past sixty years of nuclear power operations. To better expand on why nuclear power as a competitive alternative to fossil fuel sources of power is not looked at as an alternative while other sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower plants are in this literary analysis.

           In Banerjee’s article for the investigation into Los Alamos National Labs due to a whistleblower alerting the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability about practices in LANL showcase some irresponsible handling of waste production at the nuclear equipped scientific facility. In regards to the commentary within the posting of the article the words used by Banerjee seem condemning of nuclear energy as a whole and less on the actions of those few involved with the irresponsible acts, when nuclear research is now less than the majority of work done at LANL, in the wake of several disastrous wildfires in the region, one of which threatened to cause widespread contamination and radioactivity if the nuclear areas were threatened and destroyed by fire that could cause damage similar or worse to that of the Fukushima reactor earlier in 2014. Which was another cause for reluctance on the use for nuclear power, although the Fukushima incident was caused by natural disasters.

In Patrick Malone’s article on the WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) in south eastern New Mexico and the incident caused by LANL in which a container holding nuclear waste was improperly disposed of in the shipping process and was linked back to the laboratory from shipping manifests. The reason LANL had improperly disposed of was partially due to the time restraints set onto them by the DOE (department of energy) to clear the waste in LANL to retain it’s funding for the upcoming year. These restraints led to cutting corners and pushing LANL to take risks to preserve its funding, and although the incident was from nuclear waste the cause of it was not the waste itself but the funding and fear of losing it that caused the event which will cost millions out of the DOE to clean and fix to return the WIPP back to functioning order.

In William Hunter’s article he confronts the issue that nuclear waste has created in the difference in management and engineering between a fully engineered waste plant to handle nuclear waste and the Sandia Mixed Waste Landfill (MWL), including the $6 billion dollar Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) to the unlined open pits of the MWL. As a contrast in severe accidents the author highlights a preventable incident with a salt truck in the WIPP and an accidental fire that should not have happened with uranium chips at the MWL. With these points brought up the author brings up the lack of responsibility that Sandia National Labs (SNL) holds with the MWL and any form of cleanup after an attempt to protect the environment and nearby inhabitants created by the New Mexico Environmental Department, as well as other claims to fix or monitor the MWL that are either defunct or insufficient. Hunter also exhibits a lack of acknowledgment that the waste stored in the MWL was never an expected byproduct of nuclear waste because the work at SNL created mini reactor failures to see the result and the waste from those experiments was never encountered before and so there was no codes or regulations on storing of the waste at the time.

Contrastingly in Physics.org’s article on the completion of the cover for the SNLMWL which praised SNL for the correct actions on fulfilling the requirement to contain the landfill and to prevent the further spread of materials and was getting ready to fulfil reports every five years (before SNL got a waiver for this) on the status of the cover and the tracing of waste from the landfill as it was swept by the elements. With the completion of the project to maintain the landfill from opening or from being breached it was a chapter in the role of nuclear power following Three Mile Island and the reactor failure, which was contained by the safety structure, and the landfill was to serve as a resting place for controlled reactor meltdowns to see the effects on the reactor and the fuel rods which was funded by the DOE to see what safety concerns a reactor meltdown would actually have.

Sevior in his report mentions different costs per Kilowatt-hour of sources for fuel and stating nuclear sources of fuel as being the most cost efficient form of energy production at the time of 2006. Being a physicist with nuclear physics knowledge and a professor at a university in Melbourne, Australia, Sevior shows a side to nuclear power not seen in the general public which is for the expansion of nuclear power plants and states through similar events in France in which there is a net profit for nuclear power at only the equivalent of cents per tax dollar. Other factors include total carbon cost for obtaining the energy source, maintenance, and costs for waste disposal which would make nuclear energy the cheapest available source of power if it wasn’t for lawsuit cases and watchdog groups forcing costly delays and unnecessary halts to programs that then fuel coal and oil based power plants to be the main source of energy in the country, which also causes increased carbon emissions. By the end of the article post Sevior also acknowledges increased safety features to modern reactor designs that are currently being used as well as new advances to physics in recycling spent fuel rods after nearly a century and the continued effectiveness of re-refining spent rods in the future to not need to draw out as much uranium, although uranium is still in levels of concentration in the earth’s crust.

Through mediums of opinion and stories nuclear power still has a hold onto the strong judgments of the authors, whether it be praise or contempt for nuclear power when it goes to a person with closer working relations with nuclear power the option seems to clear up past opinion. As a source of energy nuclear power is equally as viable as any other source of energy although the strong opinions surrounding it make it a less than effective source of energy in the US because of the issues surrounding facilities. Waste and safety arise as issues although failures and safety concerns are those of up to sixty years ago with aged nuclear power plants and differences in the culture for safety concerning those issues, now which have been regulated on a more international scale and have new facilities with innate safety features. If nuclear power were allowed to step out of a zone of taboo in concerns and controversy to become economically feasible nuclear power would have a better standing at being a preferred method of power.

Another example of the failing viability of nuclear power due more to economic reasoning than to accessibility to energy through the article by David Abel is the Plymouth nuclear reactor, which is to shut down by 2019, which will receive more costly inspections and will per year and waste will be left in the facility until other plans to remove the waste are made. Reactions to groups watching the Pilgrim plant in Plymouth have reactions of either elation or concern depending on the side of nuclear power they stand on. The Pilgrim plant is not the only plant in which has been shut down in recent years or has been set to be shut down due to safety concerns revolving around the waste, although many plants have no dedicated dumping site due to politics. Another direct result from the coming closure is the downgrading of personnel to match the economic losses the plant will face also reducing the amount of people watching and making sure that waste from the plant will be secured and remain in place.

           Most of these articles are critical towards nuclear energy as a whole and the wastes that it produces as well as facilities that have used nuclear power for destruction and have been less than careful with its waste. Although the articles and pieces speak of nuclear power and waste that it produces the one article on the economics and the emissions of varying different sources of power generation as well as giving a more in depth knowledge on nuclear power and it’s processes. Nuclear power and waste is treated in the majority of the articles as a powerful force that is to be concerned about instead of a solution to the problem with emission heavy energy production. Much of the fear from nuclear power stems from incidents around the world on varying levels of influence on nuclear power plant failure from the very well contained and controlled to the disastrous and destructive.

           For current writing that is on nuclear power and the culture surrounding it pertaining to the viability of nuclear energy as a major replacement to coal, oil, and natural gas the processes and materiel cost of nuclear power would be comparable to that of oil and natural gas, this alone might substitute towards the viability towards nuclear power. But economic factors underlying nuclear power omit nuclear power as a sought after energy source because of costs induced with lawsuits from environmental agencies as well as costs that would have to be faced with additional issues from the initial lawsuits. Bad imaging of nuclear power also doesn’t help the viability of nuclear power although the power source itself is a practical form of energy production. And so nuclear power from a production standing is viable and may be desirable but from an economic standpoint the viability of nuclear power is questionable and may be more trouble to entertain than to pursue other sources of energy.

 Bibliography:

Abel, David. "Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth to Shut down by 2019 - The Boston Globe." BostonGlobe.com. The Boston Globe, 13 Oct. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.

 Banerjee, Subhankar. “Exposing the Environmental Risks at Los Alamos National Labs." Alternet. N.p., 19 July 2011. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.

  Malone, Patrick. "LANL Officials Downplayed Waste’s Dangers Even after Leak." The Santa Fe New Mexican. N.p., 15 Nov. 2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.

Hunter, William. "Sandia Needs to Clean up Toxic Dump." ABQJournal Online. Albuquerque Journal, 10 Apr. 2014. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

 "Sandia Announces Completion of Mixed Waste Landfill Cover Construction." Sandia Announces Completion of Mixed Waste Landfill Cover Construction. Phys.org, 3 Nov. 2009. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

Sevior, Martin. "Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs?”The Oil Drum. Prof. Goose, 9 Aug. 2006. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

[emilianothestudent]

Museum Review

In the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History, a Smithsonian affiliate and the only national museum in New Mexico, the aspects of the creation of the atomic age are presented through interactive displays and are generally similar in appearance to other displays and exhibits until the Energy Encounter Exhibit, showcasing different forms of reusable energy resources, primarily focusing on the nuclear avenue of sustainable energy production. Not only does the lighting, which is brighter than other areas, is distinctly different but also the floor plan for the exhibit in its interlocking semi-circular walls displaying different aspects of nuclear power as well as a small section for solar, wind and other renewable resources. The exhibit itself seemed to be set up to be more focused on the positive aspects of nuclear energy and to be informative on the topic without getting trapped in technical terms or the politic surrounding nuclear power into this day.

 Acknowledging within the exhibit how past accidents have shaped the culture of today in relation to nuclear power the wording for it seems to try to limit bias when talking about the events and just explaining the trends of culture that followed afterwards and stopping at that. In an attempt to show safety features of modern day nuclear reactors and what seems an attempt to have less criticism or cynicism towards nuclear power and the concerns around it by having a scale nuclear reactor with different functions labeled and interactive on display in the exhibit as well as having a scale structural support used in the plants with thick concrete pillars and large diameter re-bar.

 On top of showing the safety features of modern nuclear power plants the exhibit also explored the early uses and functions of nuclear power plants such as powering shipping freighters and early nuclear plants. In being surrounded by nonmilitary application exhibits for nuclear technology helps to make the exhibit dealing with mostly nuclear alternative energy seem less threatening as well being sponsored by PNM, New Mexico’s general power supplier, also allows to give a more positive light still to nuclear energy and promoting it as a viable source of power. Overall the exhibit in the National Museum of Nuclear Science & History has done well to make Nuclear power seem peaceful and feasible to make way to power the way into the future and details how so in the exhibit itself although the exhibit lacks on showing the means to change the culture other than to keep presenting the exhibit in the way it does as a bright way towards the future of energy.

[emilianothestudent]

Precis

In Tyler Wall’s galvanized commentary “Legal Terror and the Police Dog” claims that the modern use of the police dog is to establish modern order in today’s society. Writing on the way society ignores or makes police dog attacks seem less the fault of the over extension of power that police have and pinning the blame on those attacked Wall explores on how the police fabricate a social order in which it is acceptable to think like so through repeated use of dogs throughout history. Wall wrote this commentary for a left leaning reader while also being accessible for the reader looking for the fabrication of social order and what roles objects and animals hold for it.

[emilianothestudent]

Literary Analysis Worksheet

1. What is most interesting about the articles is the varying opinions on the subject matter on nuclear power and the waste it produces. Not only do most of the articles vary in opinion but provide with better analysis on the climate on the status of nuclear power.

2. For the most part the articles are casting a negative light towards the effect of nuclear power and the lack of responsibility that is related to facilities using nuclear technologies, although one directly counters the costs and pollution that the others claim with costs for the duration of a nuclear plant.

3. The settings for the pieces and what they are on about directly influence the culture for nuclear power as well as nuclear incidents related and how it influences the nuclear culture.

4. Authors for this topic reveal their bias through the easily discerned stance for nuclear power and how they are either for or against it for one reason or another, whether for or against nuclear power stated in the arguments for the stance.

5. Pollution is seen as a constant threat throughout all pieces chosen but vary in the amount of focus placed on them with some pieces of writing focusing on the disaster of pollution and others on the logistics of it.

6. Questions left after looking through the readings are the question as to why people are so scared of nuclear power in this day in age after large advances in safety material and designs as well as the total benefit to nuclear power over coal, petroleum, and natural gas sources of power.

[emilianothestudent]

 Peterniti, Michael. "War Dogs." The Dogs of War. National Geographic, June 2014. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

           Jose Armenta a Marine dog hander working with sweeps on IED’s (Improvised Explosive Devices) is in Afghanistan in the Helmand Province, one of the highest casualty dense areas of the Afghanistan war. Sent with almost every patrol made by the Marine forces in the area to aid the sweeping of IED’s Jose and his dog Zenit are constantly under judgment from the marines on patrol for doing their job under pressure. With recent history of handlers being severely wounded or killed Jose is mounted with more pressure for him and his dog to perform, later resulting in an accident in which Jose loses both legs. After losing the legs to an IED Jose want’s the dog, treated like any piece of equipment, back to him and is met with large amounts of paperwork to be approved for this process. The dog released form duty and now seen as surplus or decommissioned equipment to the Military resumes his life with Jose helping to anchor Jose as a person before his accident, during his deployment, and after the accident.

           Using this article to show how military organizations, as well as other linked governmental agencies, may see dogs and other animals of labor as equipment used to the single purpose and are readily able to be replaced. The Human aspect of the article may be used also to try to gather sympathy for an argument to be made to the callousness that the military sets up within the animal handlers that may transfer over to civilians after a traumatic experience. Or as a counterargument to the benefits of using dogs as a successful technology to help prevent larger incidents and to reduce losses if the incident still happens, with only losing the dog and maybe a few others over losing a large patrol group.

           Heyes, J. D. "Drug-sniffing Dogs Are a Law Enforcement Hoax, Signaling Drug Alerts Even When No Drugs Are Present." NaturalNews. Natural News, 29 Aug. 2015. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

           In the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals a lawsuit was made from a man convicted for possession of drugs to review the conviction due to the dog involved in the flagging that led to the search for drugs may have been faulty. The conviction was upheld, due to evidence amounted other than the dog flagging the convict, but left the question to the court on reliance of dogs when flagging for drugs. Although training for dogs needs to have them at above a 90% accuracy rate for detections some dogs end up with higher false flag rates that may be from drug residue but still lead to question the authority of searches due to the flags of dogs. The court later ruled that methods for promoting the flags, whether positive or negative, was inconsistent for promoting proper flagging behavior and has been discontinued in Illinois, where the convict in question was arrested.

           The piece showcases how the dogs themselves are not always accurate and even in false positive situations the behavior of the dogs is to give the dog a reward. The article can also allow for the overextension of police power in search situations on the reliance of dogs instead of mostly on other senses such as conversation and definitive signs of nervousness when asked questions pertaining to narcotics. The article also provides insight on how a case linked with dogs and drugs can be waived by mostly due to the concept of the criminal appealing for retrial due to the conviction on drug possession due to insufficient cause for a search.

 Goldberg, Jonah. "Don't Abandon Our Dogs of War." National Review Online. National Review, 3 Sept. 2014. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

           Dogs in the military by officials are seen as military equipment able to be left behind if needed, to the handlers and the soldiers working with the dogs they are seen in active service as a rank higher than the handler, gaining precedence over the handler in care. In a documentary by National Geographic on dogs in the battlefield it shows how crucial the dogs are to the military effort on the ground and how they affect the military personnel around them. But because of how officials view the dogs they are disregarded when they are retired from service and may be left in the battlefield. Private organizations are involved in trying to get some of the military dogs sent back to the US to join their old handlers and some litigation has been made to confront the issue but it is not a priority when faced with the treatment of human veterans.

           This article ties in efforts in the media and private organizations on what is currently being done with military dogs and what can be done to help the animals. Linking together several sources to provide a medium of views on the treatment of military animals and the organizations trying to treat them like animals ad not like equipment so that they may return to a safer environment. With the concept of the military dog the article brings to question why it is an issue whether the dog was militarized or not and that they, like other veterans, deserve the happiness to return to a home and be treated well.

[emilianothestudent]

A walk through the Albuquerque Biopark

In the Albuquerque Biopark Zoo, where rare exotic animals are put on display, a local endangered species is proudly put on display for the public, the Mexican gray wolf. In the area surrounding the approach to the housing of the wolves, passing the “Catwalk” exhibit and at the end (or beginning) of the carnivores section of the zoo with a large palisade of dried wooden beams standing as a wall with partitions for windows to see a glimpse at the wolves as they pace or lay within their wooded biome. The zoo itself is laid out in multiple sections, some of them separate exhibits by continent or biome the animals held are from, others into what type of animals are there. Within the almost separate area for the wolves signs different from the usual zoo plaques detailing the general information of the animals are displayed proudly on the dry beams of wood making up the viewer side wall to the wolf exhibit. Detailing the history of the population of the wolves and their decline from the 1800’s to today, other signs full of information on what to do in the case of wolves harassing livestock or people and how to be more involved with conservation efforts to help grow the miniscule population of the wolf.

           The zoo cannot do justice to the Mexican gray wolf while it is in such a confined area within the walls of an urban zoo at the heart of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Although the Mexican gray wolf is native from central Mexico and had a range at the peak of the population to the deserts and mountains of Arizona and New Mexico, but has diminished to only small isolated populations in the wild. The wolf being a carnivorous pack animal the diet of the wolf consists of larger hoofed animals such as elk and deer and may consist of rabbits and rodents. The wolves live in packs consisting primarily of a single family unit, the alpha pair, and their offspring and may be larger in certain situations and the children of the alpha. Due to the dwindling numbers of wolves after the livestock boom in the southwest. In 1978 the Mexican gray wolf being placed on the endangered species list was prioritized for conservation programs to try to bring populations up and reintroduce them into the wild by 2006. The conservation programs have been attempting to minimize human interaction from the wolves to be able to preserve their natural behaviors of shyness around humans and to keep the wild behaviors of the wolves as intact as possible to allow for an easier reintroduction process into the wild. With the enclosure at the Albuquerque zoo attempting to showcase the rare wolf it seems to fall flat in the true need for conservation that the wolves seem to need.

[emilianothestudent]

Precis

In his article “A Mind in the Water” D. Graham Bunett questions the conventional ideas of the modern dolphin and exposes why we think of dolphins today as intelligent friendly creatures. Bunett writes how through the actions of the eccentric scientist John Cunningham Lilly played a major role in the shifting of perception on dolphin from a nuisance to fishers and whalers to an intelligent and highly social animal, and an icon of the counterculture. Bunnett wrote “Mind in the Water” not so much to show how dolphins have changed to a popular and positive animal in society from the man that viewed them but to recognize the effects that one man with large scale influence on how society looks at something, with the mind of John Lilly.

[emilianothestudent]

War of the Whales Book Review

Joshua Horwitz examines the mass stranding of multiple species of whales in the Bahamas in March of 2000 and scrutinizes the role of the US Navy as steward of the seas in his compelling book War of the Whales. Scrutinizing the stranding brought to attention the actions of the navy and the impacts it has on the marine environment, including the direct cause of mass whale stranding and the use of active sonar. War of the Whales follows the fight against the Navy and its vast resources through Ken Balcomb, a marine biologist, and Joel Reynolds, an environmental attorney, on holding the navy accountable not only to the incident but to the standards it should meet from federal regulations.

Horwitz ties in Balcomb with the Bahama stranding to begin the plight of the book and the insight into Balcomb’s mind while he does what he thought needed to be done. In tying in Balcomb to the Bahamas stranding Horwitz also ties the close relationship Balcomb has with the Navy, as a sonar operator, and on why Balcomb had the reluctance to accuse the Navy in spite of growing evidence against them. In the end Balcomb testifies against the navy and continues to monitor naval activities in his research station in Washington when more incidents including the navy come up and continues to provide evidence and advice to try to regulate the Navy to follow federal regulation.

Horwitz then begins to speak of legislation against the Navy by introducing Joel Reynolds through Reynolds own story of how he became an environmental lawyer and then his later string of victories and compromises made with the navy before the Bahamas stranding. Reynolds is passionate about saving the whales and proceeded to push himself into the investigation and pending lawsuit towards the navy.

The investigation and the lawsuits seem to be going well with full cooperation of the navy and the judicial until the attacks on 9/11/2001 and the installment of the Patriot Act. After the instillation of the patriot act the navy managed to evade past legislation under the guise of interests for “National Security” and drew out the legislation process and investigation for the navy. With the drawing out of the investigations and legislative actions against the navy Balcomb and Reynolds begin to experience turbulence in their lives in their attempt make the navy adhere to federal regulations for protection of the environment as well as making them take responsibility for the Bahamas stranding. During the long legal battles Balcomb, a navy veteran, wanted the Navy to “walk the walk when it came to its proclaimed commitment to being responsible stewards of the ocean environment” (272).

In Horwitz’s narrative account of the events following the Bahamas Stranding he tries to write as scientific as able to relay the depth of information that needs to be had to better grasp as to why the Navy’s exercises and practices were hurting the ocean environment while trying to stay within layman’s terms and not become a scientific book in itself. In doing this Horwitz sets up to need to feed events into his narrative of the events to bring the reader into feeling empathy for Balcomb and Reynolds as certain aspects of their personal lives are affected negatively. As a result of needing to feed into the empathetic events for Balcomb and Reynolds it also has a side effect of creating a sense of empathy for the whales and justify the lawsuit on the Navy. Although the book does treat Balcomb and Reynolds as a type of here it never does justice to the whales past a personal connection to both Balcomb and Reynolds leaving a gap of interest between the whales and the people being followed in the book.

[emilianothestudent]

Annotated Bibliography (final)

Banerjee, Subhankar. "Exposing the Environmental Risks at Los Alamos National Labs." Alternet. N.p., 19 July 2011. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.

           Subhankar Banerjee went to interview geologist Robert H. Gilkeson for his work in having earned the “Whistelblower Award” from the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. While interviewing Banerjee uncovers that at Los Alamos National Labs although millions of dollars are being spent to put in place groundwater monitoring wells other actions are skewing evidence that is done by the labs with the intention of doing so. Gilkeson later explains that the monitoring wells are crucial to maintaining proper accountability for the labs because of the millions of cubic feet of nuclear and chemical waste in LANL territory that was threatened by the Los Conchas fire in 2011 which shut down the labs for a week. Continuing the interview Banerjee then gathers evidence from Gilkeson that LANL and its areas that contain unlined dumps, shafts and pits are on two fault lines in which any seismic activity above .75 on the Geiger meter would be amplified by 75% than expected and could cause a disaster similar or worse to the Fukajima reactor meltdown that same year. The issue therein that lies with the information is the lack of data and knowledge on the fault lines in which LANL has given reports on, does not exist or the gaps in data are too large to be considered reliable to use.

           My Analysis: Subhankar Banerjee’s interview of Robert Gilkeson could be used in an analysis of Los Alamos National Labs and how although processes to monitor contamination in local areas. The article can also be used to show how LANL is attempting to allow itself to continue and expand operations on which it would need additional permits or data to do. The article also brings to light on how LANL would want to create information to benefit its own studies and to allow for projects to continue to run without fear of retribution from federal regulatory agencies.

             Malone, Patrick. "LANL Officials Downplayed Waste’s Dangers Even after Leak." The Santa Fe New Mexican. N.p., 15 Nov. 2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.

           Malone Patrick reports on the history of the active removal of nuclear waste left behind from cold war productions (legacy waste) throughout the nation and specifically mentions the Las Conchas fire and the rush to repackage all waste within Los Alamos National Labs by the end of 2014. Due to the time restraints LANL and its contractors began to cut corners to save on time to be able to retain its $2.2 billion dollar annual contract with the DOE (Department of Energy). Due to these cutting corners a particularly acidic waste was found and during the packaging process was mixed with an organic fluid absorber (cat litter) and was then added with a neutralizer for the acidity, then turning into a volatile and reactive chemical compound into a single drum. The drum then reacted on a truck inside of WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) as it was being moved to its final location within the plant causing an explosion and leaking low amounts of radiation while causing temperatures within to reach 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit. The explosion then raised concern for additional barrels of nuclear waste as well as delay the WIPP function and making a $500 million dollar cleanup necessary over the course of five years to resume normal WIPP activity at the expense of the DOE.

           My assessment: This report does well in highlighting the dependence that LANL has to its DOE funding and that it will do what it deems necessary to maintain its funding, even cutting corners that result in easily preventable accidents. As a document that chronicles the timeline of the accident as well as the process in which the accident was allowed to take place the piece would be effective when writing a condemning or a critical argument about LANL.

Hunter, William. "Sandia Needs to Clean up Toxic Dump." ABQJournal Online. Albuquerque Journal, 10 Apr. 2014. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

The article contrasts the difference in management and engineering between a fully engineered waste plant to handle nuclear waste and the Sandia Mixed Waste Landfill (MWL), including the $6 billion dollar Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) to the unlined open pits of the MWL. As a contrast in severe accidents the author highlights a preventable incident with a salt truck in the WIPP and an accidental fire that should not have happened with uranium chips at the MWL. With these points brought up the author brings up the lack of responsibility that Sandia National Labs (SNL) holds with the MWL and any form of cleanup after an attempt to protect the environment and nearby inhabitants created by the New Mexico Environmental Department, as well as other claims to fix or monitor the MWL that are either defunct or insufficient.

My Assessment: As another source that tends to agree and support the trends and general statements of the Mixed Waste Landfill this source can be used to verify other sources and confirm facts. This source also shows in some layman’s terms on the disregard and the lack of follow up on SNL’s claims to prevent and contain spread of contamination. As a piece of supporting evidence it would add to an article written about the MWL.

 "Sandia Announces Completion of Mixed Waste Landfill Cover Construction." Sandia Announces Completion of Mixed Waste Landfill Cover Construction. Phys.org, 3 Nov. 2009. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

The Environmental Restoration Project at Sandia National Labs (SNL) reports that the completion of a project to cover the Mixed Waste Landfill (MWL) was completed in 2009, which would contain low level nuclear and chemical waste with ease. This was due to the orders of the New Mexico Environment Department in 2005 which required SNL to put a cover over the landfill to prevent any leakage and spread to the environment. The cover as well as the landfill will remain under surveillance and remain monitored until it is concessive that any leakage and radiation has been contained by the cover.

           My Assessment: Seeing as the article was written in 2009 after the completion of the project to cover the MWL it would be as a good comparison on the stance to prove the forthrightness of SNL to give information regarding the MWL and their attempt to publicly show that all was right. As well as mentioning the report that SNL was supposed to fill out every five years before SNL had failed to do so would contrast to the critical point of view in the original article to the optimistic view for the progress of the landfill in the 2009 article.

Sevior, Martin. "Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs?"The Oil Drum. Prof. Goose, 9 Aug. 2006. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

           Nuclear energy is derived from specific isotopes of uranium, 235U, and plutonium, 239Pu, and is then refined to a point of being useful for use in reactors. Uranium as a resource in the world is still easy to access and is still available in the millions of tons in the earth’s crust, showing a much more readily available fuel source than rapidly dwindling fossil fuel sources. The energy consumption of nuclear reactor from construction operation and decommissioning is also the smallest of any source of energy generating facilities with the least amount of time to be payed off with cents to the KW-Hr including waste management costs. Carbon dioxide emissions from the plant are in excess of 100 times less than other electricity generating plants such as natural gas and coal. With the costs of construction, waste management, use, and deconstruction the nuclear power plant is the most cost effective energy production facility with modern reactor designs. New reactor designs on all new constructs of nuclear reactors are safer than previous designs such as the design at Chernobyl, which was a structurally insecure design to begin with, and the reactor of Three Mile Island, which had no secondary safety systems, with multiple layers of redundant safety equipment as well as a built in containment facility should there be a malfunction of the reactor protecting the environment outside of the reactor. Nuclear waste is needed to be isolated for periods of time before safer transportation is possible, but spent nuclear waste can be repurposed in 100 years or less for refining the uranium and plutonium again to reuse it as fuel for reactors or to get waste metals like gold silver and platinum now significantly less radioactive and usable in other functions with minimal human interaction. Spent fuel rods and uranium also cannot be repurposed into weapons grade nuclear material as it is well above the concentrations usable for such devices making the reactor processes a disarming process as well. The only thing stopping the utilization of nuclear power is economic advantages of coal plants and public political opinion on nuclear power.

           The article written by Martin Sevior makes the argument with a doctorate in physics to support his claims on the benefits of nuclear energy in itself as a more efficient power source than coal, petrol, or natural gas. This shows the point of the efficiency of nuclear power in cost and emissions showing that nuclear power is indeed available to produce efficiently and that public concerns such as weaponization of spent nuclear waste as well as the long half-life of the waste is resolved within 100 years to be reused.

 "Sandia Announces Completion of Mixed Waste Landfill Cover Construction." Sandia Announces Completion of Mixed Waste Landfill Cover Construction. Phys.org, 3 Nov. 2009. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

The Environmental Restoration Project at Sandia National Labs (SNL) reports that the completion of a project to cover the Mixed Waste Landfill (MWL) was completed in 2009, which would contain low level nuclear and chemical waste with ease. This was due to the orders of the New Mexico Environment Department in 2005 which required SNL to put a cover over the landfill to prevent any leakage and spread to the environment. The cover as well as the landfill will remain under surveillance and remain monitored until it is concessive that any leakage and radiation has been contained by the cover.

           My Assessment: Seeing as the article was written in 2009 after the completion of the project to cover the MWL it would be as a good comparison on the stance to prove the forthrightness of SNL to give information regarding the MWL and their attempt to publicly show that all was right. As well as mentioning the report that SNL was supposed to fill out every five years before SNL had failed to do so would contrast to the critical point of view in the original article to the optimistic view for the progress of the landfill in the 2009 article.

[emilianothestudent]

Annotated Bibliography

Bienaimé, Pierre. "The US Navy's Combat Dolphins Are Serious Military Assets." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 12 Mar. 2015. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

           Since the 1960’s the US military began doing training with dolphins with SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command) and has recently received funding for the year as well as projected funding from the pentagon until 2020. The US Navy initially started the marine mammal training program to see on how to improve the mechanical and processing equipment of the Navy. Later on it turned to train dolphins which have been used around the world in security and clearing operations. Due to the capabilities of the dolphin’s bioacoustics they are a vital asset to naval operations and will be until modern robotics and sensory technology is on par or ahead of the capabilities of dolphins.

           The use for his article would be for the current uses of the militarized dolphin and how the government is still putting in efforts to fund the marine mammal program. This article also lists some of the deployments of the navy dolphins in active theaters of war as well as day to day patrolling. The article also illustrates the dependency of the navy on the use of the dolphins for the tasks it already uses them for.

           "Dolphins in the Military." Dolphins-World. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

           The history of the Navy’s marine mammal from inception in the 1960’s and the operations throughout the 20th century was beneficial to the navy for its uses of bioacoustics scanning and longtime patrolling of secured waters. Throughout different operations and through the years after declassification and reduced funding the navy had to try to ease the economic strain of maintaining the dolphins. In an attempt to give the dolphins to a sanctuary in Florida, which was met with some controversy after they were released into the while without permits resulting in the recapturing and returning of the dolphins to the navy.

           This article shows the side effects of the navy’s marine mammal training program on the lack of ability to re-integrate the dolphins into the wild as well as the lack of utility for the dolphins past the military use. On the same aspect of looking towards the incompatibility the article also shows how singular the purpose the dolphins have even within the military and the singular existence of the trained dolphin.

Hoare, Philip. "Let Slip the Dolphins of War." The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 May 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

           With regards to the use of dolphins in the military the moral question of using dolphins in military aspects is the same as having a dolphin in any other form of captivity. Although dolphins and whales have specialized parts in the brain linked to higher intelligence and emotion found in other animals they are yet to be seen in dolphins and still have a vague line of moral standards as with other intelligent animals. Other behaviors showing violence and sexual aggression have been seen in dolphins bringing to question their intelligence and further blurring the disposition to use the dolphin in war.

           This article uses the marine mammal training program to once again show how dolphins are being used in the military without focusing on the use of the dolphin themselves. Using the argument of intelligence with the dolphins and the capacity of the brain the article brings to question the morality of using a possibly intelligent animal to the military. Then by bringing points of the deviant animal behavior similar to humans such as violence and sexual aggression the article turns to the ideal dolphin viewed in culture as an inhibitor to seeing them used in the military, something that seems frivolous.

[emilianothestudent]

War of the Whales Review (Rough Draft)

   Following the mass stranding of multiple species of whales in the Bahamas in March of 2000 the role of the Navy as the steward of the seas was scrutinized and the plight of the whales was put into motion to be a public problem. Joshua Horwitz writes in his non-fiction narrative War of the Whales how Ken Balcomb, a marine biologist, and Joel Reynolds, an environmental lawyer, tackle the daunting task of gathering evidence on what caused the stranding and holding the people that caused it accountable.

    Joshua Horwitz introduces the Ken Balcomb in tandem with the conflict that is being looked into with the Bahamas and opens up the first section of the book to inform the reader on the people and science involved in the investigation, both official and unofficial. In introducing Ken Balcomb before giving a backstory the primary focus of the narrative begins with the whales through Balcomb’s eyes initially, then moving into a summary of Balcomb’s life. Expanding on Balcomb and his work with the navy, after the summary of Balcomb’s life, Horwitz introduces the history of whales and whaling practices to give more information to the reader to the specifications the whales have to survive in their habitat as well as the bureaucracy that past investigations have gotten run aground in and how it could happen to the investigation of the Bahamian incident. In introducing Balcomb as a concerned person with the stranding of the whales with an involved background it causes the reader to shift into a mode of thinking of being skeptical of the Navy and the attempts it makes to investigate and the practices the navy has over what may have caused the mass stranding.

      In the second section of the book Horwitz introduces the NRDC, an environmental watchdog organization which has filed lawsuits to make federal agencies follow environmental guidelines or to create new environmental guidelines to protect the environment and its inhabitants. In Introducing the NRDC Horwitz also introduces Joel Reynolds to tell the other half of the battle to hold the US Navy accountable to the beaching and to set up legislation to make the navy follow federal regulation on environmental protection. This introduction and following of the organization as well as following Reynolds, who was initially as personally driven as any other person at the sight of a beached whale, makes Reynolds as relate-able as Balcomb and connects the two when both of their drives to make a safer environment for the whales and makes the reader more viable to take up the position that they both hold in being adamant about saving the whales and making the US Navy conform to federal laws about environmental impact and protection in light of the increased threat from events post 9/11 and after the passing of George W. Bush’s Patriot Act.

     In the third and fourth sections of the book Horwitz narrates the struggles both professionally and personally that Reynolds and Balcomb face to relate them still more to the reader and to empathize with them in light of sacrifice and struggle. This tactic is clever in once again galvanizing the reader to the cause that Reynolds and Balcomb are fighting for in legislation and in doing so portrayed the women in both of their lives as sacrifices needed to be had in professional relationship with with Dr. Ketten between both people and the relationships they both had with ex-wives having sacrificed their relationships with the wives to put forth the evidence and work to save the whales putting them in a hero-like role with needing a sacrifice for any gain they have. 

   Even with the tropes of having hero’s sacrifice something or someone precious for the greater needs of a group Horwitz successfully persuaded myself to look at the US navy with greater scrutiny in their actions and purpose in the modern world. Horwitz managed this by providing enough scientific evidence and background to systems and the major role they played between the Cold War and in today’s continued war on terror to rationalize the acoustic systems used by the navy as well as provide evidence and scientific knowledge to understand whale biology to the point of recognizing what detrimental effects the instruments cause. Horwitz wrote this book in an informative narration in a way that he pushes for one side of the issue at hand with the US navy following federal environmental regulations and succeeded in convincing myself that something is needed to be done to allow the needs of national security and environmental protection to meet though the presentation of information and reasoning for both sides presented in the book. Not only questioning of the information and the struggle that has been seen by the navy but in the way the information was presented in a way that provides no bias for the organization or people involved or mentioned while still being able to narrate the story in a way that involves an end goal to save whales from the harms of humans.

[emilianothestudent]

Bleed at 516

           Walking into 516 art gallery I’m greeted by a flight of stairs as I head upwards to The Knew Normal exhibition. Walking around the exhibition in between the midst of modern depictions of how the world’s nature is changing nothing seems to catch my attention. Passing by white walls and examining the placed art like one would pass by an aisle in the grocery store of things you wouldn’t need.

           That was until I came across “Bleed” by Lee Lee, causing a sense of discomfort in seeing a forest of aspens emit a blood like substance with the sounds of the usual snaps and pops of a forest coming from on top of a shot gunned plywood. The penciling and paint on the plywood makes the forest appear from Colorado a few short years ago to the showroom today. The effect of the shotgun blast on the plywood looked less like the splintered wood and more like torn flesh from the trees and the blood red paint highlights the effects of tearing flesh from the aspens with blood still oozing from the wound on the tree.

           What Lee Lee tried to portray in “Bleed” was the destruction of the forests within the forests near Denver, Colorado due to drought that also caused the aspens to change the sap coming from the trees to contain alizarin making the sap look like blood. In the description of the piece Lee says that he chose the shotgun to tear the plywood to signify the rapid destruction of the forests, and he used a similar alizarin paint to fill in the gouges in the plywood. Coming from Taos, New Mexico and living near Denver, Colorado Lee Lee wanted to convey the sense of loss of familiarity with the forest.

           Although Knew Normal is part of a larger project to use art to convey environmental changes happening throughout the world. Lee Lee’s “Bleed” seems to convey the larger purpose of the project well in the simple use of materials and re-imagining the forest in the plywood gouges and alizarin. Lee seemed to communicate the purpose of the more efficiently than other pieces in the exhibition because instead of trying to show how humans are affecting the environment indirectly “Bleed” is directly showing an effect of the changed nature in the world.

[emilianothestudent]

Precis

“Ecologies of an Empire: On the New Uses of the Honeybee” by Jake Kosek is about how empires apply military interest on the honeybee, reforming the bee to meet the empire’s needs foregoing the purpose and natural existence of the bee. Kosek writes his essay into several parts detailing the ecological changes in bees, such as increased docile behavior, and how facilities such as Sandia National Labs and Los Alamos National Labs that are currently training bees to recognize explosives and in doing so have rewritten behavioral patterns of the bee. Kosek wrote this essay to reflect on how military ideologies are actively restructuring the physical and behavioral aspects of bees.