The threats to Greenland

Posted by on

We concentrate on the obvious places where dictators thrive and warfare kills thousands, but tend not to note the stress experienced by the people of Greenland, who are struggling to cope with global warming, which is totally altering their way of life.  More than 90% of Greenlanders accept that the climate is changing, while 76% are experiencing dangerous sea ice journeys and having to euthanise sled dogs that they cannot keep owing to the shorter winters.  As a result of the stress there is a high level of alcoholism and suicide. The mental health of the Inuit population is causing serious concern to mental health professionals, who are finding symptoms of anxiety, ecological grief and even post-traumatic stress owing to the rapid changes in their lives.

Then along comes Trump, proposing to “buy” Greenland in order to give his election donors the chance to mine the place for coal, oil etc. etc. and make matters hugely worse. Praise the God of Money, money, money!  

Trump would hardly be concerned about the stress already being experienced by the Greenlanders, were he to succeed in buying Greenland because the global warming crisis is “fake news”, is it not?

(This bullying by Trump should be a joke …..but no, it is not. Picking this ludicrous and unnecessary fight with harmless Denmark is not the behavior of a normal person.  Is it psychopathic ?  It is certainly irrational,  but I suppose there is, for his supporters, a rationale somewhere in the Old Testament.  So that’s o.k).  

We will all pay for this

Posted by on

Letter from James Marriott, published in The Times,  London, 17 August 2019

“I don’t own a home,  and like many people in their 20s I suspect I never will. The proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds who own a house has collapsed over the past 20 years, from 55% to 34%. Getting on the property ladder is famously hard in London, but the problem isn’t limited to the capital. In Greater Manchester, home ownership among that age group fell from 53% in 1984 to 26% in 2017; in South Yorkshire, it fell from 54% to 25% over the same period.

“The idea of never having a place to call one’s own, and always having to pay exorbitant rent, is “depressing” for millennials like me. But this trend also promises to have dire consequences for society as a whole. It’s no coincidence that the birth rate in England and Wales is at a record low. “Young people paying over the odds to live in grubby shared houses are understandably reluctant to start families.” Nor is it any wonder that many of them feel politically alienated as a result. It’s not a healthy or sustainable situation. Pity Generation Rent. “But remember their problems are yours too.” 

On top of that many are working on short-term contracts, with no job security.  They either have no work pensions, or, if they do they are bitty, small and inadequate.  Yes, they (some or most of them) will be inheriting houses, and, presumably some capital from their parents, but by then it could be too late to have children.  Most of my friends, by around 28, were married, had at least small apartments of their own, a mortgage and a first child (a generalisation. of course).  This modern situation is a sign of political incompetence, total lack of forethought, and the overweening power of the modern capitalist system.  Life really is stacked against the younger generation, and I for one can’t blame them for disillusionment.  Some might comment that a smaller population is a good thing for the planet, but along with it comes political instability, no good thing for a calm, peaceful, fulfilling life. First off – build nice, affordable apartments, targeting young buyers.

 

Just so you know

Posted by on

On August 10th I did a posting on the effect of suncream on reefs and marine life…..

From the New Scientist:

In the past five months, the US body that regulates sunscreens as over-the-counter drugs, has declared that 12 active ingredients used in these products might not be safe. Four of these ingredients enter the bloodstream through the skin.  None of the commonly used ingredients have been decidedly declared unsafe, but questions hang over them.

In most countries, sunscreens are classified as cosmetic products. In the European Union, they are subject to rules on which ingredients can be used, and must pass tests for skin and eye irritation, for example.   But in the US sunscreens, including cosmetics marketed with a sun protection factor, are now regulated by the FDA like drugs, years after initial introduction in the 1920s. because they make specific claims to reduce the chances of sunburn, skin ageing and skin cancers.

Take oxybenzone, for example, which is widely used in sunscreens. In 2008, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found traces of it in the urine of 97% of the 2500 people it tested. Other studies have found the chemical in breast milk.  It is thought that  oxybenzone might be a hormone disruptor, and act as a very weak oestrogen (so far unsubstantiated).

The FDA issued new proposed rules in February this year, saying that only two of the original 16 “safe” ingredients can actually be considered safe and effective: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. Of the remaining ingredients, two will be banned, while the rest, including oxybenzone, have big question marks over them. In recent studies, where four such ingredients were tested  (four times a day on the skin, for four days), not only did all four chemicals turn up in the blood, they did so at levels that demand further research to make sure they aren’t causing cancer.  Meanwhile, it was found that. sunscreen was absorbed after the first application and that it persists for days..

The fact is that there is a real lack of information on what the consequences of slathering on suncream are.  Back in the 70s, everyone thought that what you put on the skin stayed there. No one imagined that they  could be absorbed by the skin.

Concerns are now being raised about the chemicals in cosmetics too. They face little regulation in the US and have had the same level of scrutiny as sunscreen in the EU. This means that few studies have been done about which chemicals in cosmetics, if any, can enter the bloodstream and what their effects may be.

Part of the problem comes from complaints falling through the cracks. If someone in the US complains of an adverse drug effect to its manufacturer, then the company has to report it to the FDA. But this isn’t the case for cosmetics. This means that issues can go unnoticed. Notwithstanding this, between 2004 and 2016, “only” 5144 adverse events were reported to the FDA (seems quite a lot to me.  Ed.)   (edited version of a long article in  New Scientist, August 2019)

Kashmir: what happened

Posted by on

Indian-administered Kashmir remains under an unprecedented lockdown, subject to a curfew and without phone and internet links. It followed the announcement that India’s only Muslim-majority state would lose its autonomous status. Article 370 of India’s constitution, in force since 1949, guaranteed Jammu and Kashmir the right to make its own laws in all internal matters, and denied property rights to non-residents. It was revoked by Narendra Modi’s Hindu right-wing nationalist BJP government. The legislative assembly, which should have approved the move, was suspended last year.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan accused India of “ethnic cleansing” in Kashmir, and his government asked for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the crisis.

Why is this event of interest to those who subscribe to the teachings of Epicurus?  One has to go back for context to Indian independence.  The first prime minister, Nehru, was born in Kashmir, which logically should have been awarded to Pakistan.  But Nehru was determined to have his birthplace part of India.  Thus began decades of wars and  mutual hostility.  Since 1947, the disputed Moslem territory has sparked three wars between India and Pakistan as well as a bloody 30-year insurgency. The Kashmiris now fear an influx of Hindu Indians, and will now be more susceptible to recruitment by Muslim insurgents backed by Pakistan,  increasing the risk of military escalation – which between two nuclear-armed states is a frightening prospect. 

All around the world, populist leaders are launching similar attacks on the rule of law and democracy (where it exists at all) based on deliberate misinformation, lies and the manipulation of votes and legal systems.  It has taken centuries to establish forms of democracy, popular controls over the power-crazy, and the idea of a free Press, reporting fairly. All this now being undone.  It will pass, but what will be left we have no idea.  Not good for Epicurean peace of mind. (adapted and re-edited from an article in The Week, 17 August 2019)

The return of federal executions

Posted by on

“Anyone who has witnessed the steady rise of Trump, with the thumbs-up, thumbs-down swagger of an omnipotent Roman emperor,” knew this day was coming.  Attorney General William Barr has just announced the end of the Justice Department’s unofficial, 16-year-long moratorium on executing federal prisoners. The department plans to put five inmates to death in December and January. Barr selected the first candidates carefully, to blunt the complaints of critics: three of the five inmates are white, and “each committed one of the most heinous crimes one could imagine, the murder of children”.

But that doesn’t change the fact that capital punishment has been proved to be racially discriminatory and can lead to the innocent being executed. In recent decades, 166 death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA testing or other evidence. Most developed nations abandoned this barbaric practice long ago, and even the US states that carry out the bulk of executions in America have “sharply reduced” their use of the death penalty in recent years. So why bring back federal executions now? As is so often the case with our Caligula-like president, “the cruelty is the point”. It thrills his base.  (Will Bunch, The Philadelphia Inquirer, re- published in The Week, 10 August 2019)

This is a moral and philosophical issue.  Surely there has been quite enough discussion and research about the death penalty over many years. Revenge killing-by-society is immoral, and, in some Southern States, often with suspected racial overtones. It is also useless as a deterrent.  Murderers don’t not murder because they might  be executed for it; it never occurs to them that they will be caught, and, in any case, murders are typically carried out in a moment of rage, or by people who are mentally deranged. All too frequently the accused turn out to be simple-minded, inarticulate, but innocent.  But these objections carry no weight, it appears, with the self-described christian followers of Trump, who get riled up about abortion but are happy to see adults executed, even when innocent. But then who now expects consistency?