What your science can't prove can kill you.
I remember that British functionary feeding beef to his daughter on TV during the Mad Cow scare. The point was that he believed but didn't know. In the 1800s the economists of the world decided that the Arts were of zero utility because they were not as easy to understand as a chair that you sit on. Today there is this from the current research: REH >From "Rhythm, Music and the Brain, Scientific Foundations and Clinical Applications" by Michael H. Thaut. Routledge, 2005 (underlining by REH) "Tools were shaped with more beauty than required for purely functional purposes have been found dating back 200,000 years. Cave paintings (e.g., of hunting scenes) that strike the contemporary viewer as possessing significant aesthetic quality have been dated as old as 70,000 years; flutes, rattles, whistles, and percussion instruments as old as 30,000 years have been found. Rock engravings as old as 16,000 years depict dancers, thus implying the presence of music. Discoveries of musical instruments, at times amounting in number to the size of modern-day full orchestras and created within the last 10,000 years, have been made in many parts of the world, including Egypt, Mesopotamia, Syria, South America, East Africa, and China. An ancient set of six wooden pipes discovered in Ireland-dated at 4,100 years of age, tuned in octaves, and executed in sophisticated craftsmanship beyond the normal Bronze Age levels-are considered to be the oldest wooden instruments found in Europe. Recent discoveries, however, extend some of the significance of the previously recorded artifacts. Figurative artworks-works based on drawings or sculptures, or creating recognizable images of figures or objects-dating over 30,000 years ago have been found in Europe. The appearance of such figurines is considered a reflection of the evolu-tionary aspect of the ancient arts, because figurative artworks begin to embody symbolic representations that are created to stand for something else. The existence of such highly sophisticated artworks, virtually at a time when modern human beings appeared during the Ice Age in Europe, suggests that these artistic abilities did not evolve but rather existed. The discovery of wooden bagpipe-type instruments, tuned in octaves of D sharp, dated to the Bronze Age (mentioned above), is another case in point. These findings contradict earlier notions that artistic abilities evolved over many thousand years from simple scratchings to higher levels of depiction and sophisticated expression. They suggest that advances in the arts may have been driven more by advances in technology and materials or the purposes art was meant to serve, rather than by gradual attainments of progressively higher levels of talent. As such, we would have to consider these ancient artists to be as developed in their artistic ability as contem-porary artists are, a notion that would have obvious consequences for our view on art and brain function. Furthermore, true advances in the arts have always been difficult to classify. Very few developments have been universally accepted as advances. The development of perspective (i.e., the application of geometric principles to line drawing to create illusions of three-dimensional views on two-dimensional surfaces) may be one of the few, and is considered by many scholars to be an exception in art history. The use and understanding of perspective did not exist in the visual arts in any culture in the world, regardless of sophistication, until its discovery in the Renaissance by the Florentine artist Filippo Brunelleschi. Evidence for the early existence of fully developed artistry on levels of sophistication, abstraction, and representation similar or close to modern art, with little evidence for incremental progression, can create some startling and provocative notions on the role and nature of artistic talent In the human brain. The notion of an evolutionary development of artis-tic ability and the belief about the lack of biological necessity for the arts, art as the "icing on the cake" of human brain development, after the basic needs of survival in culture and civilization are satisfied-are seriously questioned by these data. Why did art exist at such early stages of human history if it was not necessary for basic survival and societal prowess relative to material needs? In light of such questions, artistic engagement as part of human behavior may appear much more funda-mental to human brain function than originally conceptualized. The question of why art has emerged as human behavior and what role and function it holds in a human being's life may have more biological lowers after all. Following a triangular reasoning approach that (a) arousal and activation functions are essential regulatory systems components of human psychobiology; (b) artworks have arousal-inducing properties; and (c) the evidence for the existence of highly sophisticated levels of artistry goes far back in anthropology, we may infer a fundamental role for the arts and the human brain. We may suggest that the brain engages in the arts because the arts, including music, create a particular type of sensory input, a specific perceptual language that is necessary for the appropriate regula-tion of arousal and activation states. The brain needs to engage in combin-ing forms of lines and colors, creating horizontal and vertical layers of sounds of different timbres, building physical shapes and movements of the human body in dance, in order to build, sharpen, maintain, and create miler in its perceptual machinery as an essential aspect of brain function. Human beings are perceptually driven; a large part of the neurological architecture of the nervous system is dedicated to intrinsic and extrinsic perception. Much of the plasticity of the neuronal wirings of the human brain is driven and modulated by perception. The purposeful and adaptive connection between perception and movement forms part of the essential core of all of the human brain's mental operations. Artistic expression may exercise fundamental brain functions and may create unique patterns of perceptual input that the brain needs and cannot generate through other means in order to keep its sensory, motor, and cognitive operations at optimal levels of functioning. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:30 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Arthur Cordell Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: [Ottawadissenters] Livestock falling ill in fracking regions, raising concerns about food - The Ecologist As someone who, together with Noel Newsome, was personally responsible for writing a report to the 'UK's Department of the Environment which led to the passage of the Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act 1972 I was an environmentalist then, and I am no less an environmentalist now. I was, and still am, proud to be one. Also, although originally trained to be an industrial chemist 50-odd years ago and don't consider myself to be anywhere near qualified to be an expert on some of the items of fracking fluids, I nevertheless claim to have a fairly balanced judgement on what is scientific and what is dubiously so. If the critics of Bamberger and Oswald's paper are correct -- that the latter give no identifiable sources for their evidence then, until we see three or four other papers (and in front-line journals, too) then I, too, will remain sceptical of the harm to cattle that is supposed to be caused by fracking. Keith At 17:23 29/01/2013, Arthur wrote: From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:04 PM Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Livestock falling ill in fracking regions, raising concerns about food - The Ecologist http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1784382/livestock_falling_ill _in_fracking_regions_raising_concerns_about_food.html [] <data:cid:[email protected]> Livestock Falling Ill in Fracking Regions, Raising Concerns About Food <http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1784382/livestock_falling_il l_in_fracking_regions_raising_concerns_about_food.html> ELIZABETH ROYTE - Ecologist Here an aspect of the food trend that is just beginning to emerge: The intersection of food and fracking. It is not a pretty picture. In the midst of the US domestic energy boom, livestock on farms near oil-and-gas drilling operations nationwide have been quietly falling sick and dying. Elizabeth Royte reports While scientists have yet to isolate cause and effect, many suspect chemicals used in drilling and hydrofracking (or 'fracking") operations are poisoning animals through the air, water, or soil. Last year, Michelle Bamberger, an Ithaca, New York, veterinarian, and Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell's College of Veterinary Medicine, published the first and only peer-reviewed report to suggest a link between fracking and illness in food animals. The authors compiled 24 case studies of farmers in six shale-gas states whose livestock experienced neurological, reproductive, and acute gastrointestinal problems after being exposed-either accidentally or incidentally-to fracking chemicals in the water or air. The article, published in New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, describes how scores of animals died over the course of several years. The death toll is insignificant when measured against the nation's livestock population (some 97 million beef cattle go to market each year), but environmental advocates believe these animals constitute an early warning. Exposed livestock 'are making their way into the food system, and it's very worrisome to us," Bamberger says. 'They live in areas that have tested positive for air, water, and soil contamination. Some of these chemicals could appear in milk and meat products made from these animals." In Louisiana, 17 cows died after an hour's exposure to spilled fracking fluid, which is injected miles underground to crack open and release pockets of natural gas. The most likely cause of death: respiratory failure. In New Mexico, hair testing of sick cattle that grazed near well pads found petroleum residues in 54 of 56 animals. In northern central Pennsylvania, 140 cattle were exposed to fracking wastewater when an impoundment was breached. Approximately 70 cows died, and the remainder produced only 11 calves, of which three survived. In western Pennsylvania, an overflowing wastewater pit sent fracking chemicals into a pond and a pasture where pregnant cows grazed: Half their calves were born dead. Dairy operators in shale-gas areas of Colorado, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Texas have also reported the death of goats. Drilling and fracking a single well requires up to 7 million gallons of water, plus an additional 400,000 gallons of additives, including lubricants, biocides, scale- and rust-inhibitors, solvents, foaming and defoaming agents, emulsifiers and de-emulsifiers, stabilizers and breakers. At almost every stage of developing and operating an oil or gas well, chemicals and compounds can be introduced into the environment. Cows lose weight, die After drilling began just over the property line of Jacki Schilke's ranch in the northwestern corner of North Dakota, in the heart of the state's booming Bakken Shale, cattle began limping, with swollen legs and infections. Cows quit producing milk for their calves, and they lost from 60 to 80 pounds in a week and their tails mysteriously dropped off. Eventually, five animals died, according to Schilke. Ambient air testing by a certified environmental consultant detected elevated levels of benzene, methane, chloroform, butane, propane, toluene, and xylene-and well testing revealed high levels of sulfates, chromium, chloride, and strontium. Schilke says she moved her herd upwind and upstream from the nearest drill pad. Although her steers currently look healthy, she says, 'I won't sell them because I don't know if they're okay." Nor does anyone else. Energy companies are exempt from key provisions of environmental laws, which makes it difficult for scientists and citizens to learn precisely what is in drilling and fracking fluids or airborne emissions. And without information on the interactions between these chemicals and pre-existing environmental chemicals, veterinarians can't hope to pinpoint an animal's cause of death. The risks to food safety may be even more difficult to parse, since different plants and animals take up different chemicals through different pathways. 'There are a variety of organic compounds, metals, and radioactive material [released in the fracking process] that are of human health concern when livestock meat or milk is ingested," Motoko Mukai, a veterinary toxicologist at Cornell's College of Veterinary Medicine, says. These 'compounds accumulate in the fat and are excreted into milk. Some compounds are persistent and do not get metabolized easily." Veterinarians don't know how long chemicals may remain in animals, farmers aren't required to prove their livestock are free of contamination before middlemen purchase them, and the Food Safety Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture isn't looking for these compounds in carcasses at slaughterhouses. Documenting the scope of the problem is difficult: Scientists lack funding to study the matter, and rural vets remain silent for fear of retaliation. Farmers who receive royalty checks from energy companies are reluctant to complain, and those who have settled with gas companies following a spill or other accident are forbidden to disclose information to investigators. Some food producers would rather not know what's going on, say ranchers and veterinarians. 'It takes a long time to build up a herd's reputation," rancher Dennis Bauste of Trenton Lake, North Dakota, says. 'I'm gonna sell my calves and I don't want them to be labeled as tainted. Besides, I wouldn't know what to test for. Until there's a big wipe-out, a major problem, we're not gonna hear much about this." Fracking proponents criticise Bamberger and Oswald's paper as a political, not a scientific, document. 'They used anonymous sources, so no one can verify what they said," says Steve Everley, of the industry lobby group Energy In Depth. The authors didn't provide a scientific assessment of impacts-testing what specific chemicals might do to cows that ingest them, for example-so treating their findings as scientific, he continues, 'is laughable at best, and dangerous for public debate at worst." The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the main lobbying group for ranchers, takes no position on fracking, but some ranchers are beginning to speak out. 'These are industry-supporting conservatives, not radicals," says Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the environmental group, Natural Resources Defense Council. 'They are the experts in their animals' health, and they are very concerned." Last March, Christopher Portier, director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called for studies of oil and gas production's impact on food plants and animals. None are currently planned by the federal government. As local food booms, consumers wary But consumers intensely interested in where and how their food is grown aren't waiting for hard data to tell them their meat or milk is safe. For them, the perception of pollution is just as bad as the real thing. 'My beef sells itself. My farm is pristine. But a restaurant doesn't want to visit and see a drill pad on the horizon," Ken Jaffe, who raises grass-fed cattle in upstate New York, says. Only recently has the local foods movement, in regions across the country, reached a critical mass. But the movement's lofty ideals could turn out to be, in shale gas areas, a double-edged sword. Should the moratorium on hydrofracking in New York State be lifted, the 16,200-member Park Slope Food Co-op, in Brooklyn, will no longer buy food from farms anywhere near drilling operations-a $4 million loss for upstate producers. The livelihood of organic goat farmer Steven Cleghorn, who's surrounded by active wells in Pennsylvania, is already in jeopardy. 'People at the farmers market are starting to ask exactly where this food comes from," he says. _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
