6Likes
January 4th, 2014, 05:30 PM
Hello
After reading Dr. Bullard's Symposium The Legacy of American Apartheid and Environmental Racism,
i was intrigued to understand a bit more the environmental phenomenon associated with racism.
It works as an environmental apartheid, as a 'field offorce' against any men who attempts to build relationships with the discriminated group.
How science can help to minimize the environmental aggression experienced by men who wants to intimate with the discriminated group?
Hey, That's an interesting topic. My sense of it is that its about marginalized communities, race is a clear statistical factor but not the be-all-end-all, it effects poor people of all races, and even well-to-do communities sometimes get the toxic waste dumped on them without knowing it. The dumpers just tend to fear them a little more, due to them having the ability to sue, and to pay for scientific investigations that will reveal the act, so they try to choose marginalized groups. Its about hitting where people are weak.Originally Posted by zealoth
To me, the core issue is about the people's right to bear science. I'm using that term in reference to the 'right to bear arms': We have in my country (USA) a strong community based on protecting the right to keep firearms, even though defence capabilities of the small arms pales in comparison to the military, people value the right nonetheless. Similarly, though our scientific capabilities may pale in comparison to what some genius at MIT can do with a multi-million dollar budget, we need to value and cultivate our individual scientific capabilities nonetheless, and be active against forces that would seek to curtail them. We need to take pride in our ability to intelligently use a Geiger counter, to test our water and soil purity, and to generally detect general toxicity in our environments, as well as to find and prosecute the source when a human is at fault, or to mitigate and protect with purifiers when nature is at fault.
Sadly, I don't think the public school system, in its current state can do this. A lot of old ruts apply, and science is personal discipline. I liked the ideas about teaching computer science more in highschool, as having high school kids writing their own phone apps could give them a sense of ownership of their science. Similar with chemistry and physics projects tied to production of tangible goods. You want students to own their knowledge, to make wealth of it, and to achieve self empowerment through science. This is essential in a free market society, and I think would drive the development of a larger scientifically aware culture, as well as to help dissipate the destructive "genius worship" cultural manifestation of science, where science is what geniuses do, not what ordinary people do.
True. Race is not the be-all-end-all. More accurate could be the term eco-marginalization. However the best info i found was Robert Bullard articles, he is known as the father of environmental justice.
He says: African Americans are 79 percent more likely than whites to live in neighborhoods where industrial pollution is suspected of posing the greatest health danger. The effect is a society divided, literally and psychologically, by freeways, railroad tracks, landfills and hazardous-waste dumps.
Bullard: Much of America has wrong complexion for protection — Environmental Health News
Maybe middle class neighborhoods could't afford professional equipment for testing all potential pollutants. I guess they trust their goverment is responsible enough, otherwise the excessive cost in public health will be evident for the media.We need to take pride in our ability to intelligently use a Geiger counter, to test our water and soil purity, and to generally detect general toxicity in our environments, as well as to find and prosecute the source when a human is at fault, or to mitigate and protect with purifiers when nature is at fault.
That's a great ideal, but I'm afraid it's already been hijacked by all sorts of interests before we consciously knew it as a right. Lots of products or proposals depend on citizens believing they possess enlightened power of discretion. I choose breakfast cereal X because I know it contains essential whatchamacallit and 30% more buzzwords. How would a right to bear science not become so much astroturf?
Zealoth, could you briefly outline how this "field office" against any men who attempt to build relationships with the discriminated group, operates? I'm not disputing that there is discrimination or manipulation, but, what is meant by "field office"?
I'm sorry, figuratively speaking i wrote by mistake 'field of force'(also, the two f appeared together: field offorce) instead of 'force field'.
In fictional works, a force field, sometimes known as an energy shield, force shield, or deflector shield is a barrier made up of energy or particles to protect a person, area or object from attacks or intrusions. This fictional technology is created as a field of energy without mass that acts as a wall, so that objects affected by the particular force relating to the field are unable to pass through the field and reach the other side. It is a concept popular in science fiction and fantasy works.
I KNOW AND UNDERSTAND VERY LITTLE ABOUT RACISM, I'M NOT ABLE TO MAKE ANY CRITICISM OF ANY SECTOR OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY, NOR IS MY INTENTION TO START A DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT.
I'm curious about many different topics, sometimes looking for a scientific answer to unconventional questions or eccentric.
In this case I wonder about the issue of marginalized groups associated with the environmental pollution.
1. If a close friend of many years falls into poverty and moves to a slum, would be reasonable to not visit him to avoid be affected by pollution?
2. That isn't being ungrateful, selfish and uncaring?
3. From a strictly scientific point of view, how to calculate the impact on health that would imply visit him regularly?
thanks
No. This would be completely unreasonable and would indicate you were not really a close friend.
Ungrateful? I don't know. Selfish and uncaring, very definitely.2. That isn't being ungrateful, selfish and uncaring?
Determine the nature of the pollution; assess the degree of exposure you will have to it; consult research papers on the effects of such exposure.From a strictly scientific point of view, how to calculate the impact on health that would imply visit him regularly?
Because pollution is a problem of the marginalized populations, few interest science have in their deep investigation. Many of the suspected and known health impacts of pollutionare currently unquantifiable.
From The Blacksmith Institute. Switzerland:
Conclusion
This report illustrates the tremendous burden put on the health of the world’s population by the release of
toxic pollution from industrial and mining processes. As noted, these estimates of global disease burdens
from toxic pollution are likely undervalued as many of the suspected and known health impacts of pollution
are currently unquantifiable. In addition, pathway types, sampling capabilities, demographic data and
access to polluted sites limited these estimates. However, this first attempt to assign DALYs to top polluting
industrial sources clearly demonstrates the scope of the problem.
http://www.worstpolluted.org/files/F...stPolluted.pdf
Yeah, there's a great deal of perception management. But when you turn real reason based/scientific tools on them, they fall apart. Things as simple as basic statistics can reveal absurdities in the cultural landscape, and in the ideas used to build political consensus. That's the great thing about science, the way it establishes absolutes. You can talk politics or conspiracies all day long, but at the end of the day, a geiger counter costs $100 on Amazon:That's a great ideal, but I'm afraid it's already been hijacked by all sorts of interests before we consciously knew it as a right. Lots of products or proposals depend on citizens believing they possess enlightened power of discretion. I choose breakfast cereal X because I know it contains essential whatchamacallit and 30% more buzzwords. How would a right to bear science not become so much astroturf?
Geiger Counter and Nuclear Radiation Monitor with Digital Output: Amazon.com: Industrial & Scientific
And it will either go off, or it won't, when you use it on that food you just bought from Japan, for what that's worth. Similar concretes realities apply all through science.
BTW, was the breakfast cereal reference random, or a reference to the Cheerios GMO thing?
http://fox2now.com/2014/01/06/under-...o-ingredients/
Last edited by TridentBlue; January 6th, 2014 at 05:17 PM.
The main thing is this is going to get worse, I believe. Look at the work a lot of good people are doing right now on drinking water purity, its expected to be a big issue in coming decades. Private water companies are only too happy to profit off it, having a situation where clean water is a luxury. We already have situations where drinking water in the third world is dirty due to industrial pollution.True. Race is not the be-all-end-all. More accurate could be the term eco-marginalization. However the best info i found was Robert Bullard articles, he is known as the father of environmental justice.
He says: African Americans are 79 percent more likely than whites to live in neighborhoods where industrial pollution is suspected of posing the greatest health danger. The effect is a society divided, literally and psychologically, by freeways, railroad tracks, landfills and hazardous-waste dumps.
Bullard: Much of America has wrong complexion for protection — Environmental Health News
Maybe middle class neighborhoods could't afford professional equipment for testing all potential pollutants. I guess they trust their goverment is responsible enough, otherwise the excessive cost in public health will be evident for the media.We need to take pride in our ability to intelligently use a Geiger counter, to test our water and soil purity, and to generally detect general toxicity in our environments, as well as to find and prosecute the source when a human is at fault, or to mitigate and protect with purifiers when nature is at fault.
The right thing to do is to empower the communities. A lot of the tools needed aren't that much. And if the communities can't be empowered, you need to find individuals in communities who CAN be empowered, who are willing to learn the science, and build communities out of them. It all boils down to a bigger commitment to science.
| « This is so cool. | Am I too Old? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
