cabadaje comments

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@Tamarama

Exactly. I wonder why you didn't look there first?

You wonder, even after I told you? Like I said, your description that it was a report about whales eating fish and krill didn't really narrow it down at all.

You think so? Again, you'd better do more research. Oh wait, that's my job, right?

Nope. Your job is to source your claims. If you don't source your claims, then they aren't claims, they are opinions.

Look at: Whaling as Science. Phillip J. Clapham

Okay. What am I looking for?

Nobel Laureates? Leading Biologists? Distinguished Scientists? Nah, they wouldn't really know much about the science of whaling.

Well, that's not an accurate thing to say. After all, of the 21 signatures on the open letter, a good 17 of them work directly on ocean related research, some directly on cetacean research. While the remaining aren't directly involved in ocean research, they are involved in the biological sciences (although the organic chemistry guy might be a little bit of a stretch).

But that isn't actually all that bad, considering that the main point of the letter isn't actually about whales so much as the quality of the research. This letter was published in the "Viewpoint" section of BioScience (a pretty reputable scientific journal) which prompted responses accusing the signatories of not understanding the science behind the issues and pushing valid science aside for the sake of a political cause. While that seems a bit harsh, considering that some of these people are actually cetacean researchers, having read the article, I can sort of see their point.

One of the first thing that springs out to me is that the main argument regarding lethal research is that it isn't needed for population estimation. Agreed. However, population research is not the sole purpose of whaling research. Similarly, the main objection to whaling is not that the data is incorrect, but rather that it is not sufficiently accurate, which to my mind begs the question of whether observation or biopsy could somehow be more accurate in regards to the state of pregnancy, consumption level and type, environmental hazard (how do you tell how much mercury is in a whale's organ from the outside?), or morphological adaption. Additionally, they continue to make references to the RMP as if it were in full effect, which it wasn't in 2002, and still isn't today. These were the biggest points in the two page paper published in the opinion section of the journal that would make me wonder why trained scientist would make objections that would really have almost no scientific significance except under such specific circumstances.

There are many other similar criticisms, you don't need to look too hard. You can find them.

I'm sure I could. Heck, I'm sure I could find some from from actual IWC scientists as well (of which Clapman is one). The question, however, isn't whether I can find criticism; there's plenty of that in any subject, let alone controversial ones. The question is who you are referring to every time you claim that "they" claim that most of the research (according to you, a mere handful) is "moderately relevant". This paper certainly doesn't. It claims it could have been done less lethally (although it only makes one reference to the least difficult portion of the research), it claims the IWC is not well-organized (in terms of publishing and organizing research), and it accuses the Japanese of not sharing data (which anyone here in a research role will recognize as a common complaint from external departments), but it doesn't ever claim that the data gathered is not relevant.

I would judge my own level of knowledge around first year, maybe second year college level, mostly out of personal interest.

I'm not all that interested in the snide little backhanders about intelligence.

Then don't make them. Making a snide remark about someone's intelligence waives your right to complain when they refute your remark without making a snide comment about your intelligence in return.

Besides which, it isn't even your intelligence which is driving the discussion, but rather your rationality.

You have declared you are content with the lethal science, I have declared I am not.

Actually, no, I have declared that I understand why lethal science is done, and don't see alternatives that would gather the same information.

I have provided a source of scientists who have questioned the validity of the methods and findings and which you claim don't exist.

Except that I have never claimed that they don't exist.

Interestingly, you will note that one of the criticisms they make is that the Japanese 'research' is self-serving. That is, it is designed to justify the restarting of commercial whaling program by establishing that the whales are overeating krill and fish stocks.

Which is why most of the criticisms of that paper remark that the true purpose was to push a political goal (an end to whaling), rather than to accurately address the more complex points of the research. Although, to be fair, it was only a two page comment piece, and Clapman has written much more extensive and detailed refutations of the research process of the IWC.

What do those collective reports we looked at tend to focus on? Exactly that.

I know, right? Really, with all the different avenues of research, and just about the only research venue that can be done non-lethally being population, why do you suppose most of the opponents would focus on population when commenting on how whaling could be done non-lethally?

What a mystery.

Recently, the Japanese minister simply stated that whaling is a cultural pursuit in Japan - that Japan has a cultural right to whale. In light of the criticisms of the scientific community, and such frank admissions by the Minister, the argument for scientific whaling seems rather moot to me.

You think that's recent? In all cases, I tend to agree. It is high time to get rid of the silly excuse for a moratorium for the purpose of research and replace it with something derived from the much more ample store of knowledge we have today, such as whaling limits set by actual population, migration, and genetic sampling, as opposed to a set of regulations that have been sitting idle for the better part of 20 years (the RMP), which even Clapman derides as not being ecosystem based.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@cleo

Sorry, you don't like this but it's clear as clear can be, in black and white.

Cleo, I don't understand how you can tell yourself, with a straight face, that you can cut up a sentence and declare that one particular snippet clearly shows, in black and white, what the entire sentence is saying. I mean, seriously, you literally stopped at the point most convenient to your belief system, and completely ignored the existence of the entire main body of the sentence...that's beyond cherry-picking. I'm not even sure there is a word for it; It's like cutting up a newspaper article and pasting the fragments of sentences back together to emphasize a point the newspaper was actively not emphasizing.

Look, you have, on a few occasions, publicly berated myself and others regarding our comprehension of the English language. "While" is a Subordinate Conjunction. The purpose of a subordinate conjunction is to link a dependent subordinate clause to an independent main clause. In other words, a clause that has no subject of its own, makes no sense on its own, and only exists to qualify an existing clause is attached to the actual main clause, which has its own subject, its own predicate, and which stands utterly unchanged by the existence or non-existence of the subordinate clause.

If we remove the subordinate clause, the main sentence continues to makes sense:

The results from the JARPA programme have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure).

Whereas the dependent subordinate clause does not:

while not required for management under the RMP

You cannot take a sentence whose entire purpose is to explain the ways in which a program will improve something, and pretend that the subordinate clause makes it say that it is completely useless. At a minimum, it is bad grammar. At the other extreme, it is outright denial.

While Japan insists that its 'research' is aimed at establishing numbers for the management of whaling, Jarpa is not required for the management of whale stocks.

Japan has never even pretended that this was the sole purpose of research.

the Workshop has not developed agreed estimates of abundance and trend for Antarctic minke whales in the JARPA research area at the present time

Nor had it developed them back 10 years previously, when the quote was made (going on 17 years now). Note again that the RMP had still not been ratified back then, had still not been ratified in 2007 when this report came out, and is still not ratified today. And this is the RMP that the above subordinate clause is referring to.

In other words, after nearly two decades and tens of thousands of dead whales, the 'research' has still not produced the desired results, ie., agreed estimates of numbers.

Oh, come on now...I gave you the link, I told you the page number, I talked about the objectives of the research...was all that time wasted? Didn't you even glance at the only two pages I referenced out of the entire report?

The 'research' may have produced other results (such as experiments in fertilising pig and bovine ova with whale semen)

Nope. Not even remotely connected. That was an entirely different line of research.

so it isn't 'completely useless' (in the same way that if I use five gallons of milk to try and make cheddar cheese and end up instead with an amorphous blob of inedible gunk, my efforts aren't completely useless: at least I can feed the gunk to the dog and use the whey to make bread; but that's an awful lot of perfectly good milk ruined) but it hasn't done what it set out to do, and if after a quarter of a century the only results they can produce are 'not required', then it's time to stop.

Unless, of course, everyone is looking at you strangely because you are feeding perfectly good cheese to your dog. Just because you don't recognize cheese doesn't mean that it isn't cheese.

If what Japan is doing is 'research', and the self-determined quota of 1000 dead whales is the minimum number needed to obtain results, why, when they this year have less than one-tenth of that number, is the whaling fleet heading back south to the whaling grounds as conditions worsen and there is no prospect of them taking more than a few more whales? The 'research' for this year (and the past few years) is so far below the 'minimum' quota that no meaningful data can be obtained; so why are they hellbent on killing more?

Well, my answer in two parts is that A) I would need to know the source of that claim, and B) Any data is better than no data.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@Tamarama

Not really - you were the one that wasn't sure where to find it, when it can be found in the most obvious of places.

Yes, alongside all the other reports made in the ten year span of JARPA. Strangely, I tried searching for krill, fish, eat, and all the other useful keywords I had available, but still couldn't quite pin it down, even with your description (such as it was).

They do have to actually maintain the pretence that it is a legitimate Scientific Program, so of course there are 'reports' and 'data'.

Pretty good pretense. Going on close to 25 years now, and despite the literally hundreds of researchers who have gone through these reports, you don't see an uproar in the scientific community about how these guys are mooching off the international group while producing nothing.

It seems to matter not to you that only a handful of them are considered moderately 'relevant'.

Considering that you keep repeating this, and I keep asking you who exactly is referring to these as "moderately relevant", and I haven't gotten a source, well, I am just going to have to assume that, as you have demonstrated here, you read a report incorrectly.

That doesn't seem like very effective science to me, but perhaps you are happy with it. Like the Japanese.

Yes, well, you already have my opinion regarding your ability to judge scientific merit.

You mock my ability to comprehend this report, but I put it to you that none of the things you cite as 'interesting' need to be done by killing 1000 whales a year.

Which has little to nothing to do with comprehending the report.

In fact, apart from measuring how much a whale consumes, there are clearly plenty of non-lethal ways of collecting much of the data cited in this report, or any of the other reports.

And as long as you keep repeating that, I will repeat my response: How?

Eventually, the mod will tell us to stop going around in circles.

If you know as much about biology as you purport to, you should be able to see that.

I've never claimed to know anything about biology. What I claim, I source. I would judge my own level of knowledge around first year, maybe second year college level, mostly out of personal interest.

Even if you can't, the scientists at the IWC and independent bodies who analyse this data can.

So you keep saying.

Hence their disapproval of the program and the fact that the vast majority of these reports are considered useless.

If you are talking about the previous "disapproval" that Cleo brought up, then you aren't talking about the scientists or independent bodies. It's right in the name: The IWC Plenary Committee. Everyone's invited. Scientific cred not required.

I defer to their judgement, with all due respect.

I'll stick with the scientists, not the politicians.

So, if you have swallowed this line-

The one you made about this report consisting of nothing but the claim that whales eat fish and shrimp?

-that this is actually effective and relevant science, I'm afraid you have no credibility in my eyes, posturing or otherwise.

Being that this is the internet, credibility isn't something that can be seen. It can only be displayed, in the open, for anyone to see. I have made my arguments, I have sourced them, and I have remained on point. You made an argument, did not source it, refused to source it when asked, finally sourced it, refused to acknowledge the counter, tried to change the topic, created a straw-man ad hom (which was actually somewhat clever in concept) of my claiming to be an expert, used that strawman to segue into an incorrect statement regarding the make-up of the IWC Committee (either unintentionally, meaning you honestly did not know that these are two separate groups, or intentionally, meaning...anyway-), and ended with the change of topic you tried earlier, supporting it with the assumption of your own credibility on the matter.

And yet...the purpose of the report was not to tell us that whales eat fish and krill.

I will be content to allow others to determine the credibility of both arguments.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: China defends massive growth in military spending See in context

It isn't the money the other countries are worried about.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: Tokyo an inspirational choice for 2020 Games, Abe tells IOC See in context

@Ayler

How many countries and cities have been lied to in the past about how the Olympics will revitalise their economy? Most face crippling debt for decades that the taxpayer has to recover.

Agreed. The Olympics don't have a great history as commercial ventures.

Not a great source, but still... http://www.cracked.com/article_19733_5-things-they-dont-want-you-to-know-about-olympics.html

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@cleo

Well, the first thing to realize is that this workshop was actually planned 10 years prior. Back in 1997, they basically said "Okay, looks like we have something good here. Let's check this out again in a decade and see if we need to change anything." Sure enough, in 2007, they meet again. The first 3 pages of the report basically catch everyone up on what they are discussing. The next 30 pages are the actual reports. Those are a bit tough to read, but if you are into skimming, probably the area of interest is towards the end of each report, where you see the little blurb about the Workshop recognizing or welcoming the research, which is kind of like their stamp of approval. Now, keep in mind, the purpose of this report is to see how well JARPA1 met its objectives. According to this report, they did indeed. Where did that paragraph come from, though?

Okay, I can't seem to post certain excerpts from the report, so if you like, here is the link: http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/a9s2rpvbfyo8scowc8wgokswc/SC-59-Rep1.pdf I will try to post the specific sentences, but please understand that it is best to read page 31 in the above report, where I am, to gain a better understanding of the context presented here.

Although the Terms of Reference (ToR) specified this overview to include how well the initial and revised objectives of the research had been met, it was inevitable that the discussions at the Workshop would give rise to suggestions for further and/or refined analyses.

In this last section, the workshop makes it clear that they have already answered the preliminary question, and are now going to go ahead and see if the data they have could apply to questions we have now, 10 after the original. And the very first proposed offshoot topic (sometimes referred to as "new direction of research), we find:

8.1 Contribution to minke whale management If catch limits were to be set at some time in the future, the present approach the Scientific Committee has agreed to use for providing advice to the Commission on commercial whaling catch limits is that specified by the RMP. When it last considered this issue in 1997, the Committee agreed to the statement below. The results from the JARPA programme, while not required for management under the RMP, have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA data could be used in this way perhaps to increase the allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, without increasing depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke whales. The present Workshop concurred with that view.

So this paragraph is actually from the initial report back in 1997, and it is stating that, specifically in reference minke whale management in Antarctica, the idea has always been to set the limits specified by the RMP (which, incidentally, has not yet come into effect), and that they could choose a number without having all the data they could get in 10 years of research (How? Not really sure. Pull a number out of a hat, I guess). However, if they did have the data, they would be able to get a far more accurate picture of the stock structure in the southern sea, and not run into the risk of depletion risk in the event the RMP was wrong.

And now, 10 years later, the workshop agrees. Yes, they could have set limits based on the regs in the RMP (assuming they ratified it). However, with the massive wealth of information we gained over the last ten years, we are in a far better position to do it in.

Reading reports isn't fun. You have to do it several times before you are completely sure what it says. Always be wary with second-hand information, double-worry when no context is given, and triple-worry when all of this is done and a conclusion is based on the claim with your vote requested. That's an old trick designed to pass off questionable sources or conclusions as givens and make you focus instead on the proposed solution.

So here we have the Scientific Committee stating clearly that the results of Jarpa are not required, yet still Japan ups its quota and continues 'researching' dead whales.

No, I'm afraid not. It sounds like it, doesn't it? But when one goes to the source, when one looks at the context...that's when we find things amiss. The Scientific Committee did not make a blanket declaration that 10 years of research were completely useless. That was the Commission, which is a plenary body, which means it does not require people who are experienced in reading scientific reports. The quote they used was not from the report they sourced, but was from a report back in 1997. And the quote was not about JARPA data being useless, but rather about how useful JARPA data could be.

Always check the source. People lie. Data doesn't.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@cleo

Heck, you're busy, no need to read at length. Just skim down the first bit of the Resolution on Jarpa

No Cleo, you can't just "skim" down a resolution of any kind. For starters, resolutions are the conclusions; they won't tell you why the decision came to be. Second, without understanding the context, it is not always clear what the resolution is referring to; in extreme cases, this is referred to as "quote mining", but in smaller cases, it is known as cherry picking. Committees don't write huge reports and manifestos for the sole purpose of hearing themselves talk (unlike me); they write long reports because it is essential to explicitly state the context and environment around which a particular conclusion or decision is made.

So here we have the Scientific Committee stating clearly that the results of Jarpa are not required, yet still Japan ups its quota and continues 'researching' dead whales.

More accurately, we have the Commission stating the Scientific Committee claims the results are not required. Which begs the question: Required for what?

"Research" isn't some single, amorphous blob of knowledge that everyone can add to or take away from. Research has a specific purpose or direction. This is what I was talking about earlier when I spoke of context. It's the research version of someone saying "It needs to be 20% cooler (can you tell I have a goddaughter?)" Without understanding the context, we are left wondering "20% more than what?"

So, we do need to read the actual report. We can't just rely on skimming. And, when we read this report, we find 40+ pages of data after data, followed by the formal "the workshop welcomes this report/data/yadda yadda (which is basically their way of saying "good job"), summing up the gains from JARPA1. So, what's all this about "Not Required"?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@Tamarama

OK, actually, I will show you, because I feel a bit bad for you.

Ah, so you did indeed manage to find it. Congratulations. That must have been an unnerving moment, not knowing where the source you thought was so well-published was actually located.

Have a look at, for example, report; SC/D06/J20. But as you can see, there is plenty to read there.

Yes, it is good to know whales research is actually resulting in data on whales. Most of us kind of take it for granted, considering the political weight involved and how politics often unfairly influences budget and support, yet nonetheless, here we are.

If you take time to read it you will find such incredible findings as; Whale stomach contents include fish. Whale stomach contents include krill. Based on the varying size of the krill in the stomach, it appears that whales do not have a preference for the size of their krill - 1mm, 2mm - they are all tasty. And other such stunning findings.

Well, being that it is only 5 pages long (the rest being supporting data), I did read it. Overall, I will re-iterate my stand: You do not know how to understand a scientific report. Particularly if all you pulled out of this one is that they eat fish and krill.

For crying out loud, it even tells you on the first page what the objectives of the report are. Them eating fish and krill wasn't even one of them; researchers already knew that (sorry, you seem to be the only one to use "stunning" in regards to that revelation). The objective of this search was to determine where and how much of the prey species was being consumed. The complementary purpose was to determine the whales impact on its ecological niche, and moreover, the effect of the environment on the whale.

I don't know if it qualifies as stunning, but there where some unexpected finds, and again, you can see these without even going beyond the abstract (scientists actually tell you ahead of time what they are doing and what they found; not very good storytellers, but at least they get to the point quickly). One of the surprised was finding out that pregnant females seem to congregate in places with relatively little food, compared to places that they know exist which have an abundance of food. That's the kind of behaviour whale biologists are really interested in knowing about.

You mock the question of prey size selectivity, but there isn't a single biologist out there who doesn't immediately understand the relevance of it. Asides from the obvious and immediate impact regarding prey population (which, by itself, is pretty damn significant), one of the most powerful forces influencing evolution is survival of the fittest, of which being eaten is one of the more direct tests out there. Yes, knowing what size prey the predator prefers, or whether there is any preference at all, is pretty important when trying to get a good overall picture of the environment an animal lives in.

Your next comment reflects the kind of thinking that occurs when you don't understand the purpose of a report:

The reason I know whales eat fish and krill, is because I've seen shows on the telly where they have filmed it happening. The nice thing about that is that they didn't kill them and eat them afterwards just to make sure.

And if you consider the telly to be a good source of education, then more power to you. Those with stronger levels of curiosity will still need a little more to go on, and they will still continue to be hired by the people with the cameras to tell them where the whales are eating the fish and krill, so they don't waste their time looking for creatures that spend 99% of their lives underwater. By reading reports such as the one you linked to, they know to film around the western slope if they are looking for the younger crowd, or in the Ross Sea if they are looking for the pregnant females. They also get a really good hook for their mysterious voice narrator:

"One of the great paradoxes surrounding these magnificent creatures is the tendency for the pregnant females to remove themselves from the bountiful western slopes, to the more barren Ross Sea..."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@Tamarama

Gee, that's interesting, because in your first post to me you implied I didn't understand the report, which also implies you must have read, and understood it better than I.

It can also imply a general lack of confidence in your report-reading abilities.

So, I guess you haven't seen that report, huh? Well, that's embarrasing for you. Especially when you get to peruse the stunning findings it contains.

Assuming that you are correct, and the contents are indeed stunning (which is why I am skeptical of your account; few reports qualify as "stunning" in any way, shape, or form).

As for embarrassment, I do not view debates (particularly anonymous ones) as games or battles, with winners and losers. If I am wrong, I am wrong, and I admit it; there is not enough ego tied into my claims to cause me embarrassment. If I am not wrong, or I believe my argument is valid, I see no reason to not proclaim it (with proper support).

I don't think so. Do your own homework - it's not my job to build your position for you. If you want to argue for whaling, then you should at least know your topic.

Then I shall remain at my position, and you at yours.

Incidentally, I am not arguing for whaling. I am arguing against misdirection and irrationality.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@cleo

Sorry, been busy, didn't want you to think I was forgetting you.

Yes they have.

Okay, interesting, I will look at that link at length later on. At first blush I does seem like I may stand corrected regarding the Scientific Committee objecting to lethal measures (which still doesn't make sense to me, as I still haven't seen nor heard of any alternative methods to get the same data). When I read it a bit more carefully, I'll get back to you.

Countries carrying out 'scientific research' under Article 8 set their own quotas. The IWC does not and cannot tell them how many whales they can 'research'.

Yes, I spoke out of office on that. It is true that each nation is responsible for setting their own quotas and regulations regarding scientific whaling. It is also true that each nation is required to submit these quotas and regulations to the IWC Scientific Committee.

In turn the Scientific Committee reviews the permits and decides whether or not the quotas match the research proposed, as well as whether the sample size is appropriate, and even whether the research could be done non-lethally (among many other guidelines pertinent to biological research).

So, instead of saying that the IWC sets the quotas for the whales, a more correct response would be that the IWC makes sure that the quotas set are within acceptable parameters of research.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Tokyo hotel shrinks in new-style urban demolition See in context

Beautifully simple and elegant solution.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan riled by WHO's Fukushima cancer warning See in context

@dontbelievethehype

Cabadje: You kindly responded to my post, with great gusto and bravado.

I did?

I...think this is your first post in this thread.

You didn't seem to reply to my accusations that TEPCO is, and was, a corrupt entity that can not be trusted further than their share certificates can be thrown.

That sounds like something I would do. Doesn't really interest me.

You didn't respond to my post that, YES, national news networks have reported that there is a cover-up in regards to radiation monitoring and reporting.

What was this in regards to? If this was in another thread, please tell me which one, as I generally don't go back to threads that fall out of my 2 day attention span.

You did cherry pick the points that are easily debated in an online, anonymous discussion.

Well...yes, of course. What would be the point of debating something that could not be easily debated on an online news article comment section? Although I do have to say that most of my cherry picking falls under my personal interest of either process or habit, as opposed to opinion and speculation.

I hope that you have taken the time to read the WHO report, if you have I would like you to point out which references they cite that pertain to current thyroid research in Fukushima, and what date the references were published. Look at the dates of the publications they cite, they are summarizing and making inferences on research that is barely 1 year old, and published buy organizations such as TEPCO that we can legally and logically argue are corrupt, and they do not look at the independent research and peer reviewed research of Chernobyl, unless that research has met IAEA approval.

Haven't finished it yet. I will keep the above point in mind though.

For the non-academic people out there, which is most of us, I'm asking why did the WHO only make assumptions using IAEA approved publications of radiation research, and not independent and peer reviewed research that exists.

That would indeed be a pertinent question. Once verified that this is what happened, of course.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

Really, this is the season that the Sea Shepherd took that proverbial "step too far". They may have won the battle (heck, considering that for the first time since the moratorium the Japanese catch actually dropped below the 250 mark, sure, consider this a victory), but its a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Not that they have a great record. Their first Antarctic whaler interception was in 2005, even though they actually started in 2002. Problem was, well...they couldn't find the whaling ships. Incidentally, 2005 is the best Japanese catch since 1986, so...not so sure how useful they were. They were, however, ready and willing (and proud) to ram and foul propellers from the get-go.

The next four years all had higher catches than prior to 2002. The reason for this is largely that in 2002 the IWC began releasing permits for whales other than Minke (although they did top out their limit for Minkes). In 2008, we begin to see the catch dropping, now that the Sea Shepherd has corporate sponsorship (back in my day, this was called "selling out"). As of 2010, the number are back to pre-Sea Shepherd days, and as I mentioned, this years catch of 250 is the lowest catch since 1988...when Japan ceased objecting to the moratorium (we've been through the whole "coercion" thing, right?) and switched to special permits.

SO, basically...

The introduction of the Sea Shepherd also ushered in the era of the largest whale catches the Japanese had made in over a decade. For the first few years, they couldn't even find the whalers. When they did finally find the whalers, the numbers where still higher than before 2002, and only for the past 3 years have the numbers actually been where they were before the Sea Shepherd got involved (the Sea Shepherd has no problem spinning numbers to make themselves look good). This year, where they compounded their usual tactics of ramming other ships and fouling their million dollar propellers by breaking laws that all sea fairing countries consider not just international law, not just maritime law, but the laws of the sea (they rammed a fuel tanker, interfered with a refueling, and called out what will likely be ruled a false Mayday), they may well have lost what very little political capital they had left. It really would not surprise me to find the Sea Shepherd out of business before the next whaling season.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_whaling_since_1985.svg

Or, at least, as ineffective as they were the first 8 years into their mission.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@Tamarama

You are welcome to try to spin that report anyway that suits your agenda.

What report? Tell me which one and I will be happy to "spin" it for you (known to others as "read").

Go ahead, I'm interested to see what you do with it.

No problem. Please link me to the report (I have enough topics of my own interest taking my time to voluntarily undertake searches for other people).

Around 55 reports 'scientific' have been submitted by Japan on their whaling. Only 14 of those have been deemed moderately relevent in their findings.

By whom?

Japan has continually been discouraged from continuing it's lethal research by the IWC scientific committee who deem it unnecessary. Haven't they.

Have they? Considering that it is the IWC scientific committee that sets the limits which all whalers abide by, and that Japan not only doesn't go to their limits, it also rejects certain permits (for instance, even though the IWC committee gave them a limit for Humpbacks, the Japanese are continuing their voluntary suspension due to this whales endangered status), that would be quite surprising.

http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/acwmk3ii6f40s0sckc4wk8484/IWCCCG1040.pdf

Where did you hear this?

Where did you hear this?

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

I have to say I am quite curious about the refueling issue, however. If it is indeed illegal, why isn't it even being mentioned by anyone other than the usual protest groups? This would be a bonafide violation of international law, caught on film, publicly acknowledge, and yet...nothing?

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@letsberealistic

@cabbage

It wasn't particularly clever or witty when wtfjapan came up with it; It is less so when repeated by someone else.

Yes, funny that isn't it. So, not only is it non-scientific and not part of modern Japanese culture but it also cannot be made profitable. So what's the point anyway?!?

Well, some people see a paradox in their reasoning, and determine that perhaps one of their assumptions is not accurate. Others, they see a paradox, and promptly consider it even further evidence in support of their belief.

Ministry of Fisheries staff tell me it's "stubborn pride" and the fear if they back down they will be seen as weak by the international community, especially China.

I'm sure they do. I am just as sure that even if that is a factor, it isn't even in the running as one of the most significant factors at the international level.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Posted in: Japan riled by WHO's Fukushima cancer warning See in context

@Cos

So it has no purpose. What matters is what should be done ? I mean from now for people still living there and in case another plant accident occurs.

Don't you find something somewhat reckless about prioritizing what should be done over the data that would actually tell you if something needs to be done at all, and what level it would need to be done at if so?

That has no interest to know. If your doctor tells you that you have 3% chances to have diabetes some day, 10% cancer, 15 % cardiovascular,,, that helps you in what ?

It helps you to not panic anytime anyone mentions the word "diabetes".

There were even more diagnosed before 9/11. The delay is still too short to see the cancers caused by Fukushima in residents. In plant workers that potentially got higher doses, maybe they already have cases.

Agreed. I have asked for a source for that thyroid report that people keep bringing up, but it doesn't seem to materialize.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Posted in: Japan riled by WHO's Fukushima cancer warning See in context

Common Sense will tell you that if you are not sure if there's impact or not, shouldn't stay there at all!

Does common sense tell you how you are going to be able to afford to restart a new life somewhere else?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@Tamarama

I'm sure the great scientific journals of the world are also breathing a sigh of relief. They may not be subjected to such stunning findings as the one presented in 2006 when the Japanese Lethal Research team announced that whales eat fish.

Your comprehension of that report notwithstanding, I would submit that no research publication will ever be relieved that they will not receive new research material because the barbarians were allowed to burn the witches at the stake, regardless of the topic of research.

-12 ( +5 / -18 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@letsberealistic

Yes, but it's primary purpose is supposed to be "research" but in fact judging from the widespread sales of the meat and very limited and dubious science the media has come to the obvious conclusion that the main purpose is to make money from whale meat.

And yet, one of the primary arguments against whaling is that it is not profitable. How does that logic work?

Not that I agree with the term "widespread sales" or "limited an dubious science". Both are, after all, not supported claims.

-10 ( +5 / -16 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

Agreed. But at least the criminals only managed to kill 75 whales.

That's nothing. Heck, the Sea Shepherd was willing to risk a fuel spill in the Southern Ocean.

-13 ( +6 / -20 )

Posted in: Japan riled by WHO's Fukushima cancer warning See in context

Mike Critchley

Yes, absolutely. WHO must be wrong. Let's continue to trust the Japanese government's risk assessments and safety limits. Yeah, right.

The two assessments are in line with each other.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

Shame the internationally wanted criminals got away.

-13 ( +8 / -21 )

Posted in: Japan riled by WHO's Fukushima cancer warning See in context

This is what happens when the non-scientists forget that they don't know as much as the actual experts do. You end up with a country that reacts in a panic to a danger that doesn't really exist the way they imagine it does. And they end up making self-fulfilling justifications for it.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Posted in: WHO: Small cancer risk after Fukushima accident See in context

@dontbelievethehype

Cabadaje unfortunately, or fortunately there will be a way to track cancer and mortality rates in Fukushima and Japan,

Why would that be unfortunate? Seems like a pretty good thing to me.

...proving causality in a court room for compensation is a different matter which is what the the Japanese government is really concerned about.

You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion. As long as you don't confuse it with fact.

The already spiking incidence of thyroid abnormalities in Fukushima in Children (especially females) is alarming to anyone who knows about Thyroid medicine or research.

Another one of those opinions that are not actually facts. Unless, of course, you are referring to "knows enough to be dangerous", as opposed to actual experts. The former do tend to get alarmed a bit more easily than the latter.

Sure someone will post some old research about how COMMON it is for kids to have abnormalities or its 'stress induced', but the facts speak for themselves.

Well...I am actually having a bit of trouble finding these "facts".

I spent the last half-hour backtracking from website to website, all talking about the cancer and the thyroid, and the nukes,m and the 44%, but as far as I could tell, all these articles...reference each other.

I would really like to find the original report, because I really want to see what the base comparison is. Anyone who knows about numbers knows that a simple "44% increase" means diddly in terms of actual information.

I would like to see the facts. Not anyone's interpretation of the facts, but the facts themselves. And I just haven't been able to find the original source.

Do you know where it is? Or are these websites just continuously feeding off of each other (could be both, I suppose).

We are already seeing the effects of this and its coming on earlier than Chernobyl.

But you aren't actually supporting this opinion with anything, are you? You are just kind of stating it as if it was a foregone conclusion.

And Cabadaje, are you really saying that there hasn't been any reports of manipulation of data, falsifying records, shielding of dosimeters, decontamination of monitoring posts in the national news?

No, I am not.

Feel free to re-read what I did actually write.

Have any of you actually read the WHO report?

Slowly (very slowly) working my way through it. I'm impressed that you were able to read it in such a short amount of time. That's a lot of data to go through.

However, for the limited points that are being argued here, I think this segment from Scientific American sums it up well:

The report, drafted by a panel of international experts in radiation risks and public health, concluded that there was no additional cancer risk for the population in most of Japan — even most parts of Fukushima Prefecture — or in neighboring countries. But the risks were slightly increased in hotspots such as Iitate village and Namie town, which were contaminated by plumes of fallout to the northwest of the plant.

In such hotspots the WHO panel estimated that the fallout has increased the risks of most cancers in children by only a few percent — though for thyroid cancer in young girls the increased risk was put at 70%. These figures are relative risks, however, and the absolute risks are less alarming. For thyroid cancer the baseline lifetime rate in women is 0.75%, so the risk in hotspots would be increased by 0.50%.

"Given the projected very low frequency, 3.2 per 10,000, of radiation-associated thyroid cancer among young people, it is unlikely that any excess would be detectable by the usual epidemiologic approaches," says Roy Shore, head of research at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima, and a co-author of the WHO report. Most emergency workers were estimated to have minimal increased risks but around one-third had a small but significant increase in cancer risks.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=prevailing-winds-protectected-most-residents-from-fukushima-fallout

The article also mentions a few ways in which the situation could have been much, much worse. It isn't that long, and definitely worth a read.

There seems to be a general idea that any organization can publish whatever the heck it wants and get away with it. This wasn't even completely true back in days when you had to wait for the quarterly publications to find out the latest claims. Today, with the almost instant availability of information, it is much, much, harder. Experts who live, breath, and work these sorts of topics on a daily basis, who's careers depend both on staying up to date, and could even be advanced through the discovery of a mistake in someone else's work, have a vested interest in both the accuracy and the credibility of reports such as these. You can read in the previous comments here how the only objection people can actually make to the WHO report is to claim that the WHO may be unbias. The data itself has not been looked at, whether actual experts agree or disagree has not been looked at, really, if you take a step back and see this as a behaviour, you find that this latest round of objections is really nothing more than the standard sort of mild fear/panic/denial mish-mash of emotions people get when they are insecure about a given situation. It gets to the point that people almost embrace the fearful lie they told themselves previously simply because they invested so much emotional strength into it.

But there are facts available, and not opinions, and not interpretations, but actual facts which represent the reality of the situation. And reality, as the saying goes, is that thing that, when you refuse to see it, doesn't go away.

The facts are that WHO is an entirely credible investigator of world health concerns.

The facts are that the extreme scenarios that people envisioned are simply not going to come to pass.

The facts are that the issues that may, and in some case probably will, come to pass, are not going to be all that different from the way reality normally goes about it's business.

And that's because reality doesn't really care what we think it should be. If the danger is minimal, then it is minimal, and no amount of commenting will change that. Same for the other extreme. At the end of the day, what matters is the data. Not the claims. Not the interpretations. Just the data.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Posted in: WHO: Small cancer risk after Fukushima accident See in context

Agreed. We lost a good family friend to skin cancer, one of the most survivable of skin cancers, when he was just in his forties. My family on my father's side, unfortunately, also has previous history, so I (now that I am in my forties) am getting a little paranoid every time I spot some new age spot on my skin.

Yeah, the risk of my getting cancer is decently low, but that doesn't mean you get careless about it. The trick is not to panic at just hearing the mere mention of it, which is something some of the JT community could stand to bear in mind.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Dreamliner will stick with lithium-ion battery: Boeing See in context

badmigraine

Nobody knows what caused the batteries to burn, but um...ah...here is the permanent solution.

Well...yes.

You don't stop an entire project worth millions of dollars simply because one part of it isn't perfect. You slow down, you investigate, and when you isolate the issue and have a workaround, you apply it, get everything going again, and continue monitoring the issue for further development. The first thing any mechanic learns is that some problems are not replicable on a machine that is turned off. You have to see it running before spotting the problem.

The engineers do, in fact, know what causes the batteries to burn, and they said so in the article. The thermal run-away is caused by a short circuit originating outside the battery. Unfortunately, they can't find the source of the short-circuit, however, know that they know where the danger comes from and how it propagates, they can take measures to isolate and go-around the danger. Redundancy features are a standard part of engineering, and not in any way an indication that something cannot be trusted. The batteries are hardly the first feature of a complex craft (let alone an aircraft) that will cause catastrophic failure in a given sequence of events, and it won't be the last. Engineering isn't about eliminating all danger. It's about reducing it to the smallest feasible probability.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Posted in: WHO: Small cancer risk after Fukushima accident See in context

@ChibaChick

I am shocked that a J mans lifetime risk of contracting cancer of an organ alone is 41%! Thats before you add in the leukemias lymphomas and suchlike - pretty high, no?

It surprises many people. The simple fact of the matter is that the chances of cancer are 100% the longer you live. In other words, you will get cancer sooner or later. Some people get cancer and survive. Some people die before getting it. Some manage to beat the odds altogether. But cancer, by itself, is all but unavoidable. Cancer caused by modern day external factors is a relatively new thing.

The key here isn't so much that the radioactive debris will not cause cancers, but rather that if it does, it will be extremely difficult to tell it apart from all the other causes of cancer. In other words, it is unlikely that the actual increase in the rate of cancers will be statistically significant (not much of a relief for the people actually suffering from cancer, but we aren't talking about individuals here).

As far as insinuating that the WHO is in the pockets of the Japanese energy corp...that's the step that goes from possibly justified concern to outright paranoia. Let's not forget that there hasn't actually been any evidence presented that any of the national reports on radiation have actually been tampered with, nor has anyone shown that any of the publicly viewable radiation meters which report real-time radiation levels are not functioning properly.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Posted in: Sea Shepherd says Japanese whalers rammed two of its ships See in context

At around 33:45, we see the Nisshin Maru and the Bob Barker running along side, which is around the time the video from the Nisshin Maru begins. At 33:50 we start to hear and see the Bob Barker revving up the engines, although there doesn't seem to be a full commitment yet, as if the crew is trying to determine if they are too late for an intercept. At 35:43 we see them decide they can, and start to shoot forward. Again, it gets difficult because at this most crucial time, the feed begins to lag yet again. At 37:15~ we see the Bob Barker do its own hove too across the stern of the tanker, and the only reason I can imagine it doing that is because it approached a bit too fast and got caught in the tanker's drag. At 37:26 we see it realign itself with the Sun Laurel. At 38:00~ it cuts engine and matches speed (i.e. idle ahead), directly in the path of the incoming Nisshin Maru. Unfortunately, we can't see the Nisshin Maru, because the camera, which the skipper had no trouble moving before when he wanted to capture the Sun Laurel's unexpected moves, is now apparently stuck filming half the Bob Barker, the tanker, and more than half the entire screen of just plain ocean for about five minutes.

This kind of caught me by surprise, because in the Nisshin Maru video we see the relative position of the NM to the Sun Laurel, and the matching speed. Five minutes should have been more than enough time for the vessel to have stopped. Around 42:00, the Steve Irwin repositions itself, and we see the Bob Barker sitting still right where the Nisshin Maru was headed, except now it has done an entire 180. We also see it tooling around a bit, so it is unlikely that it stayed still after we lost the feed (come to think of it, it couldn't have stayed still because the tanker was moving at idle speed and would have left the Bob Barker behind). The twist ending here, though, explains it all. The tanker is no longer moving at idle ahead. Why? Because there is an SS ship directly in front of it. Now it makes sense that the Bob Barker was able to stop and turn around in such a short time. It also makes sense that the Nisshin Maru, that was still moving forward and not expecting the tanker to come to a stop, was suddenly caught short.

I think, EyeonWarson, this might also explain the Bob Barker's sudden burst of speed, along with the tanker moving forward again. At 43:51, just before we see the feed cut out (Really? The feed cut out just before the collision? There are an amazing number of coincidences going here.) we see the ship ahead of the tanker beat feet, and the tanker again starts moving forward again, probably because it sees the imminent collision coming up behind it. The Bob Barker crew, now realizing that they were in a really bad place, tried to match speed too, but the little boat gets caught once again in the draft and pointed into the tanker (which is what I think we are seeing in your video). Either that, or it was intentionally ramming the tanker, which, while I wouldn't put it past the SS normally (indeed, they did precisely this earlier in the day), would have been somewhat suicidal at this point.

There is obviously a few minutes between videos as the Steve Irwin feed ends and the Bob Barker feed begins, but we see the end results. I already explained this part before, so I won't repeat myself.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Posted in: Sea Shepherd says Japanese whalers rammed two of its ships See in context

Okay then, looks like the answer to how the approach occurred has been made available thanks to the Sea Shepherd releasing its video (sort of. It was actually live feed from their webcam).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfanNxRfus4

The first part is the Steve Irwin positioning itself for a good view (incidentally, this also answers the question as to where the Steve Irwin was when the Nisshin Maru allegedly rammed both ships aside: It was way the hell behind everyone, filming the action). Around the 8:00 minute mark, we see the SI filming one of the previous attacks. We see both the Nisshan Maru and the Sun Laurel at idle speed, matching course and velocity in preparation for docking. At around 8:45 or so, we see the Bob Barker pop in between the two ships. Unfortunately, due to the satellite lag probably, the frame freezes and we only get one or two images until 13:20, where we see the Nisshin Maru go full ahead to make an emergency veer away from the Bob Barker. Being that the Nisshin Maru has little to fear from an alongside collision from the smaller boat, we can only assume that even at this point, after several hours of harassment, the captain was still trying to avoid capsizing the little boat. Why they had to do an emergency veer is not clear, but it involved proximity; either the Bob Barker tried to ram them (unlikely), or they got a bit too close and got pulled in by the draft (more likely).

If road rage was an issue, it certainly hadn't made its appearance yet. I'm not sure if large vessels use the same terminology, but the captain executes a rather well-done hove to, where he turns his sharp veer away into a 90 degree turn, effectively using the water to arrest his momentum and come close to a full stop. This little trick works, leaving the Nisshin Maru behind the Sun Laurel, and ready to set himself up for another pass; had he gone too far ahead, he would have had to circle around for another try. At 13:47 we see the Nisshin Maru again moving forward to match speed with the Sun Laurel.

At 16:40 or so we see the Bob Barker again getting a bit too close. It is difficult to tell due to the resolution, but it does seem from the tilt of the Bob Barker, that the skipper is fighting the drag. At 17:05 and 17:15, we see the skipper hitting the speed, to get out of the drag. Playing along that thin edge, where a moment's distraction will slap your tiny little ship up against the behemoth right next to you, that's not a smart or safe, not for the fragile little fleshbags bouncing around inside the metal ships.

In all cases, we see the Bob Barker fall back a little to contemplate their recent brush with mortality, and another SS ship steams up the port side of the Nisshin Maru. Emboldened once again, at 19:11 we see both ships speed up and box the Nisshin Maru in from both sides. Now, please remember that this is the same harassment tactic they tried and almost failed at two minutes ago, and tried and DID fail at earlier in this clip. The only addition is that this time, if they failed, the Nisshin Maru would not be able to swerve out of the way without hitting the other ship...which may well be the plan on the SS side.

The Nisshin Maru isn't willing to let itself be in this position, so at the same time, we see it break off from the tanker again, steaming forward to prevent the second ship from boxing it in. Again, it turns to eat up the speed and tries to parallel up for docking. Again, the film lags, but at around 22:00 we see the two SS ships falling back, probably because the Nisshin Maru, at this point, is too far away to parallel for docking.

What came as a mild surprise to everyone, including the skipper on the Steve Irwin, as he repositions the webcam to view it, is the Sun Laurel repositioning itself to parallel the Nisshin Maru. While there are no actual prohibitions about it, usually the tanker maintains course and the other ship adapts to it. That said, usually you don't have other boats actively trying to prevent you from refueling. The Nisshin Maru, spotting this chance, guns the engines at 28:00 to line up. The Bob Barker tries to intercept, and the Steve Irwin gets left behind, giving us a crappy video at a kinda important part of the story.

At 30:48 there is a sudden skip, so we don't know what happened beyond the Nisshin Maru suddenly cutting her engines, as she is now behind the two other ships and the Steve Irwin is all caught up. At 32:35, we see a flip-flop of roles as the Nisshin Maru maintains course and speed and the Sun Laurel actually turns starboard to line up with it. The beauty of this little move is that the Bob Barker, which was previously slightly between and behind the two ships, is now slightly outside to the starboard line of the tanker, parallel to the Nisshin Maru. I am having a lot of trouble believing the Sea Shepherd statement that the Koreans claimed (by way of message in a bottle), that they were being held against their will by the Japanese and that they didn't approve of the whalers. This isn't the kind of coordination that occurs without trust and communication; the tanker and the whaler needed to be working together for this to happen.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Recent Comments

Popular

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.