Damage Done: The Real Reasoning Behind the Earthquake's Destruction

You may have heard an interesting word this past year: Fukushima. This name identifies the nuclear power plant that destroyed thousands of citizens’ lives along Japan’s Tohuku Coast on March 11, 2011. Things went wrong when a category 9 earthquake evoked a tsunami, producing monstrous waves that crashed down on the coast. The earthquake, which activated a seismic fault dangerously close to the power plant, became the country’s worst thus far, and the results of the earthquake were even worse. The earthquake, tsunami, and resulting nuclear disaster destroyed Japan’s culture, nuclear industry, and people, both physically and mentally. The Fukushima Daiichi power plant incident killed 600 citizens more than one year ago, but people still experience emotional and physical damage today. Although we can blame the natural ways of the world, people mainly fault the government and media. These authority figures failed to alert the public in a timely manner, and failed to keep technology up to date before the irreversible damage was done. Although reactions have improved since previous disasters, the government and media failed to handle the Fukushima Daiichi disaster promptly and correctly, and created a far greater disaster than necessary.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/5523450134/

On March 11, 2001, disaster struck Japan’s Tohuku coast. Citizens were forced to run and permanently relocate as waves came crashing down on their homes, their belongings, and their memories. That day, lives were damaged and too many were lost. According to a study based on 6,000 other earthquakes, “the earthquake caused a seismic fault close to the nuclear plant to reactivate” (Antinuclear). This reactivation caused the plant’s cooling systems to break down, resulting damage, leaking nuclear power, and exposing many to harmful radiation. The radiation waves reached thirty kilometers away and continued to spread long after the incident. The government evacuated citizens from about twenty kilometers away, but it was nearly impossible to quell all resultant damage.

Meteorologists fell short starting at the beginning of the incident, in their initial discovery of the earthquake off the Tohuku coast. They failed to pick up on the earthquake until it was fifty kilometers away, lessening the possible response time of the area’s citizens. Considering past events such as Chernobyl, a similar nuclear disaster which occurred in 1986 Ukraine, the Fukushima Daiichi plant and Japanese Meteorological Agency geologists should have been better prepared and better able to come across the category nine monster that would soon destroy an entire town (JMA). The JMA, whose job it is to prevent and mitigate natural disasters, caused abundant and detrimental damage to the entire world. Other power plants located around the country and world should look at this disaster with caution, rather than continue their practices as usual. The Fukushima Daiishi disaster made the world once again put effort into the safety and security of the nuclear industry. 

In Japan specifically, many nuclear power plants still exist. While the disaster failed to destroy the industry entirely, nuclear power plants now more than ever need to crack down on their technology and security methods, as things are just getting worse. The earth may be unpredictable, but science today is advanced enough to prevent danger and keep citizens informed earlier to prepare and find safety. The technological mistakes are very much to blame for the danger during the tsunami and nuclear crisis. According to a Solid Earth recent publication, this earthquake has increased the country’s chance of future disasters. The European Geosciences Union revealed, “While the scientists can’t predict when an earthquake in Fukushima Daiichi will occur, they state that the ascending fluids observed in the area indicate that such an event is likely to occur in the near future. They warn that more attention should be paid to the site’s ability to withstand strong earthquakes, and reduce the risk of another nuclear disaster.” This information is slightly obvious, considering the damage done by the nuclear disaster recently, but it also emphasizes better management and its importance.

While most would partially blame the government for all damage done, some have gone to the extent to state that the nuclear disaster was man-made (Senju H.). In March of 2011, as the public’s anxiety grew, so did the nuclear plant’s attempt to hide the truth. The public was shielded from the truth about the intensity of the earthquake itself in addition to being unaware of the dangers of the nuclear power. According to an article in The Nation by Banana Yoshimoto, the Tokyo Electric Power Company is to blame. This company, which controls the Fukushima power plant, attempted to reveal the truth and kept citizens in the dark at the peak of their concern. Citizens were told that the earthquake was not a large threat, giving them false hope and less time to prepare for what was actually to come. The media additionally gave misleading information to the public, making them believe the earthquake was a lower caliber, and only revealing the truth once it became too late. While this clearly benefited no one in the long run, hopefully the companies in charge have learned their lesson and will keep the public more informed.

It is questionable whether the location will ever recover, and we know the people certainly never fully will. The society that once existed on the Tohuku Coast has been destroyed, never to return to its original state. While the people have scattered to various locations; the beautiful lands and beaches that once existed on the coast now dark and desolate. The uplifting and spiritual people are now precautionary and afraid instead. The past may have been a time of serenity and culture, but “today the cities of Japan are as brightly lit at night as an operating room, and some complain that the traditional beauty of the country has already disappeared” (Yoshimoto, 24).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/5522861353/

While the article in Nature may look upon the responses to the disaster in some sort of positive light, nothing justifies the intentional secrecy of the power plant and the media, which both effectively created a far worse disaster than necessary. In the article the author states, “...many more lives would have been lost had it not been for the work of scientists, engineers, emergency officials and a well-prepared populace.” True- things could have been worse, but was the populace really well-prepared? The evidence I have collected has led me to believe otherwise- as the people really were uninformed. Technology did not detect the earthquake quickly enough. The nuclear plant was unable to withstand the situation's pressure. Despite the past extreme earthquakes, the JMA still underestimated the earthquake’s potential. Although it may sound extreme, the disaster could have been entirely avoided if not for this secrecy and lack of technology. Because even the JMA and other important companies weren’t prepared, the citizens certainly could not be either. Having this level earthquake under its belt, the area is now prone to even worse natural disasters. The country has much to prepare for and must do its best to fix its communication problems which have harmed them in the past. The situation has proven how communication is key, and one can never be too careful. If the Tokyo Electric Power Company had revealed information sooner, greater precautions could have been taken. If the government had not sugar-coated the situation, citizens could have left sooner. If the earthquake was detected before it was only 50 feet away, the entire area could have evacuated. But the problems with the meteorological industry and the nuclear industry resulted in lost lives and too much damage done. If the citizens of Japan didn’t feel the increasing sense of urgency before, they should feel it now. Things will only get worse and the government and media must improve their ways. As stated in an article in Fortune Magazine, “The epic disaster at Fukushima Daiichi represents failure at almost every level, from how the Japanese government regulates nuclear power, to how TEPCO managed critical details of the crisis under desperate circumstances” (Powell and Takayama). For such advanced times in both geological technology and communication, these failures are revolutionary.

Works Cited

After Japan's Latest Earthquake, Government's Response Improves

Moffett, Sebastian. Wall Street Journal [New York, N.Y] 25 Oct 2004: A.17.

"Antinuclear." Antinuclear. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2012.

<http://antinuclear.net/2012/02/15/geoscientists-predict-more-large-earthquakes-in-fukushima-area/>.


Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Health Effects. The Science teacher (National Science Teachers Association) 79.6 01 Sep 2012: 30. American Science Teachers Association. 17 Sep 2012.


"Japan Meteorological Agency." Japan Meteorological Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2012. <http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/eew3.html>


Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7388/full/483123a.html>.


"Safety of Workers at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant : The Lancet." (n.d.): n. pag. Web.


Senju H. A Man-Made Disaster. The Nation (New York, N.Y.). 2011-09-01;293:23.
Steve Thomas, What will the Fukushima disaster change?, Energy Policy, Volume 45, June 2012, Pages 12-17, ISSN 0301-4215, 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.010.

Keeping the Arctic Beautiful in All Aspects

 
 http://www.flickr.com/photos/lascribe/4936266270/sizes/m/in/photostream/

Few places on Earth exhibit such a pristine and beautiful environment as the Arctic Circle, but as the demand for her natural resources rises, the possibility of polluting this frozen paradise does as well. The Arctic Circle causes people to think of visuals such as igloos, polar bears, dog-sled races, and the beauty at the North Pole. No matter what aspect of the Arctic one is examining, he or she will inevitably think about words such as clean, untouched, and spotless. However, in today’s world, these words may no longer hold true when it comes to the Arctic ecosystem. As the Arctic becomes more accessible and our understanding of exactly what resources can be gained from it grows, some rules need to be put in place on how to go about extracting these commodities. The Arctic Council was formed in 1996 for this reason under the mantra of being “a high-level intergovernmental forum to promote cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States.” Through its programs and agreements, the newly formed Arctic Council is stepping into its role as a prominent and successful source in protecting the peoples and environments of the Arctic.

The Arctic Council formed to create cooperation and proficiency among the nations of the Arctic. Prior to the formation of the Arctic Council, the eight Arctic nations including Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States of America met in 1989 to discuss what measures should be taken to protect the environment of the Arctic. The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy was born out of this meeting. This proved to be a forerunner of the Arctic Council that was established in 1996 (“Arctic Council:History”). The goals of the Arctic Council remain similar to those encompassed in the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy; however the aspirations of the Council encompass more than just protecting the environment. The Council also focuses on the peoples and the economies of the Arctic and what can be done to make them stronger. The formation of the Arctic Council has enabled a forum for which the countries can come together and make decisions that affect every aspect of their lives.

One of the Council’s main purposes, to protect the environment of the Arctic, has seen a jump in success throughout the past couple decades. All of the six working groups set up to focus on specific fields somehow relate to safeguarding the environment. The six working groups are the Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP), the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR), the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), and the Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG) (“Arctic Council: History”). An example of the success in recent years can be seen through the CAFF’s observations on the number of protected land in the Arctic. According to them, there are 1,127 protected areas in the Arctic today which is an increase from 5.6% of the land to 11% (“Arctic Biodiversity”). The ACAP, the Council’s newest working group, was formed in 2006 to act “as a strengthening and supporting mechanism to encourage national actions to reduce emissions and other releases of pollutants”(“About ACAP”). The ACAP was created from a branch of the AMAP (“Arctic Monitoring”). One of the recent studies conducted by the Council was the 2011 Mercury report. This was conducted by AMAP to study the concentration of Mercury in the Arctic (“2011 Mercury Report”). Numerous other studies similar to this have been and are being conducted by the various working groups of the Council in order to understand and better aid the environment.

The Arctic Council also recognizes and seeks to protect the well-being of the several indigenous tribes located in the area. The Council contains the Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat (IPS) whose goal is to “assist with creating opportunities for the Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations to present their causes, and to help provide them with necessary information and materials” (“Organizations”). Some of the ways in which the IPS aids the indigenous peoples is by providing them with information including, documents and reports that the Arctic Council has developed. It also creates a forum in which the indigenous members can present their views and ideas to the Council and participate in the different working groups (“Organizations”). The IPS does not speak on behalf of the indigenous people, it just gives them a way to state their perspectives. This allowance of indigenous people to have a say in the workings of the Council, sets the Arctic Council apart from other treaties or groups. By doing this, the Council has allowed itself to be more open to ideas which betters the outcome and acceptance of its studies and policies.

Some would argue that the Arctic Council is not doing an ample job of protecting the environment and would like to open the Council up to other nations, but by having only the nations and peoples of the Arctic as members, it is actually more successful. If the Council opened itself up to other countries, they would have their own interests and wants put first. For example, the Arctic is home to a large supply of oil and natural gas, and if other nations were allowed a say in decisions concerning this, the Arctic environment might be jeopardized. Other nations would be so focused on benefiting their own people and economy, that they would fail to think about the harm they are inadvertently causing others. By having only the nations of the Arctic making decisions about their homeland, this guarantees that the best decision that could be made will be made. It only makes sense for the people that will be affected by a decision make that decision.

The Arctic Council is successfully working to promote and protect the environment and peoples of the Arctic through its research and policies. Due to the formation of the Arctic Council, more information has been gleaned and a greater understanding about the ecosystems of the Arctic has been molded. As the Arctic Council continues to expand and encompass more aspects and ideas, the more beneficial its policies and discoveries will become. It is obvious that the Arctic Council has been a driving force in protecting the far north, and in the future this will likely continue. The Arctic Council has kept and will continue to keep the image of the pristine, frozen paradise in our minds a reality.


Works Cited:

“About ACAP.” (accessed 25 September 2012).
http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/working-groups/acap

“Arctic Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.” (accessed 25 of September 2012). http://www.caff.is/arctic-biodiversity-conservation-strategy

“Arctic Council: History.” (accessed 24 September 2012).
http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/history

“Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AAMP).” (accessed 25 September 2012). http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/amap

“Organizations.” Arctic Council Indigenous People’s Secretariat. (accessed 24 September 2012). http://www.arcticpeoples.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=238&Itemid=7

“2011 Mercury Report.” AMAP, 2011. AMAP Assessment 2011: Mercury in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xiv+193 pp.
(accessed 25 September 2012). http://amap.no/Assessment/ScientificBackground.htm

Japan’s Nightmare

Consider this scenario: An earthquake has just hit your home country of Japan with a subsequent tsunami that destroyed most of civilization. An estimated two thousand people went missing, six thousand injured, and as many as twenty thousand people died because of the natural disaster. With already a tremendous amount of distress on the country, there is still more to come. Three reactors in a nearby nuclear power plant melted down, causing the largest nuclear disaster in over twenty years. Many of the problems that happened within the power plant could have been avoided had the proper safety steps been taken beforehand. Modern nuclear safety has been a rising problem in many countries, especially since this earthquake and tsunami that triggered the Fukushima Daiichi plants to meltdown. Other countries must now buckle down in order to prevent future disasters and make nuclear power a safe and effective way to produce energy.

On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake hit Japan with a tsunami following soon after that severely damaged the Fukushima power plant. A little over a year and a half since the disaster, the aftermath is still being considered. What is certain is that the safety systems that were supposed to oppose outside threats failed and made it possible for a release of radioactivity into the atmosphere (Get Tough). Fukushima power plant consists of six different reactors in Japan that are located in the cities of Okuma and Futaba. Being one of the biggest nuclear power plants in the world today, it originally opened in 1971 and was recently closed down. While there were no deaths due to the March incident, anyone within a certain proximity of the plants was asked to leave their homes for their personal safety. Had the reactors worked the way they were supposed to, Fukushima would be a good example of how we want our power plants to operate. There are several disasters that have occurred in the last several decades that we should have learned from to ensure safety.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are both well-known nuclear incidents that made their mark in history. Three Mile Island took place in March of 1979 in Pennsylvania, marking the worst catastrophe in United States nuclear power plant record. There were no immediate deaths linked to the incident, but it took several years to clean up and possible further health problems could be linked in years to come (Spencer). Chernobyl occurred in April 1986, killing about thirty people who were on the scene when the incident occurred. The explosion injured many people and several contracted cancers as a result of radiation exposure. Bloomberg composed an article that compares the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear accidents to the Fukushima accident that happened in 2011. The article claims that Fukushima is a six or a seven on the international scale of nuclear incidents, while Three Mile Island was a five and Chernobyl was a seven. This puts into perspective how much damage Fukushima caused compared to Chernobyl on the nuclear scale (Narayan).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/m1k3y/5615387345/

The unknown author from Nature, a weekly science journal, claims that research and knowledge shows that nuclear energy is safe to the people. Fukushima changed many people’s perspectives and the author believes that if another accident were to occur, many industries would be depleted (Get Tough). Fukushima has raised doubts to pro-nuclear countries such as France, according to The Christian Science Monitor. This is a very big step for France, as well as anyone globally that believes in a safer future for nuclear energy. André-Claude Lacoste is one of the founding members and chairman of the INRA, an institute that supports social innovation. He said that Fukushima is even more severe than most people think it is, and France will work hard to raise the bar of safety. He hopes that the entire world will follow in their footsteps and continue to promote safety (Marquand). Lacoste also adds that, “the Fukushima accident marks nuclear history”, and that “France should not add any more technical systems in order to ensure safety to the people.” France currently has fifty-eight working nuclear power reactors and they are all sufficiently safe. They plan to keep all of the plants open unless they become harmful (Post-Fukushima).

Nuclear energy has been and will be the most economical source of power. Pro-renewable energy groups say is it risky but there will be affordable and clean energy that does not put humans and the world at risk. Many people voice their opinions in favor of clean energy, but by no means do they want to deplete all nuclear power plants. Ending all nuclear power would cause an even bigger problem than already presented and as it is, the industry is in for a challenging future (Khaleel).

The Fukushima disaster was a game changer for nuclear activity. It was a horrible incident, but it really opened the eyes of other countries to the importance of safety precautions for nuclear energy. The world must be more aware of how to react when a catastrophe does occur. If countries like France take safety more seriously, this will cause a trickle down effect on to other countries. They can then make sure they are always providing safe and efficient energy. Nuclear energy is a major resource to millions of people, and it can continue to be delivered to them as long as the correct safeguards are taken.

 Work Cited

"Get Tough on Nuclear Safety." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 12 Jan. 2012. Web. 17 Sept. 2012. <http://nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481113a.html>.

Khaleel, Shehu. "Post Fukushima Disaster; The Fate of Nuclear Energy." Post Fukushima Disaster; The Fate of Nuclear Energy. CyberTech, Inc, 20 Mar. 2012. Web. 13 Sept. 2012. <http://www.energycentral.com/generationstorage/nuclear/articles/2517/Post-Fukushima-Disaster-The-Fate-of-Nuclear-Energy/>.

Marquand, Robert. "Japan Crisis Rattles Even Pro-nuclear France." The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0315/Japan-crisis-rattles-even-pro-nuclear-France>.

Narayan, Adi. "Comparing Nuclear Events at Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island: Q&A." Bloomberg. Bloomberg L. P., 17 Mar. 2011. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/comparing-nuclear-events-at-fukushima-chernobyl-three-mile-island-q-a.html>.

"Post-Fukushima Era Begins for France." Post-Fukushima Era Begins for France. World Nuclear News, 4 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Post_Fukushima_era_begins_for_France_0401121.html>.

Spencer, Jack, and Nicolas Loris. "Three Mile Island and Chernobyl: What Went Wrong Then and Why Today’s Reactors Are Safe Now." News. The Cutting Edge News, 30 Mar. 2009. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11226>.

Pain Without Gain: Why We Should Seek Alternatives to Animal Testing

Thousands of consumers browse the shelves of drug stores each day and unknowingly take for granted the suffering behind those tiny plastic pill bottles. Miles and miles away from the welcoming neon lights of said superstores, exists millions of animals trapped in claustrophobic containers waiting for scientists to pluck them at any hour. Animal testing exposes over 25 million creatures per year to brutal experiments involving lacerations, burning, injections, and toxic chemical contact (“Questions and Answers About Biomedical Research”), often without legitimate medical contribution. Tests that work successfully on animals do not always translate effectively to humans, due to the disparity between their genetic structures, which causes test subjects harm and costs researchers valuable dollars. Although animal testing has brought about some medical advances, researchers should employ human cell-based models to preserve both our quality of life and the rights of animal test subjects.

Experimentation on animals is no recent innovation; some of science’s most legendary pioneers, such as Aristotle, participated in animal testing thousands of years ago, building some of the earliest foundations in biomedical research (Hajar). Due to lack of knowledge, scientists downplayed the impact of pain on their animal test subjects or believed that they were simply immune to feeling. Thus, it was not until 1876 in the United Kingdom that debate over the welfare of research animals started to ignite with the introduction of animals’ rights proposals in parliament; additionally, the public began to take stake in the argument and challenge the cost of animal health vs. public gain from experimentation (Belgium). Today, the morality of animal testing is a hot topic due to increased protesting and media scrutiny spearheaded by animal rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States. Advances in legislation, most notably the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, have increased regulation in the laboratory setting and a majority of airlines have ceased to allow their branches to transport research animals to lab sites.

Although transparency has improved in animal research, serious flaws still remain not only in the ethics of testing as a practice but also in the accuracy of the tests when applied to humans. Andrew Knight, Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, conducted 27 in-depth analyses regarding the contribution of animal experimentation to healthcare. From his findings he concluded that “animal studies rarely contribute to the development of clinical interventions effective in human patients” due to the inadequate design of the experiments, the stressful conditions of the animals, and the physiological differences between animals and humans. Whenever studies like these fail, millions of dollars pumped into lab equipment and precious time invested by scientists are wasted (Knight). Luckily, there have recently been large movements striving to find alternatives to animal testing that may one day put a halt to the practice altogether and provide more applicable, cost-effective results during human trials. One of the most promising solutions exists in the form of human models which are based on or composed of human cells; examples include:

in vitro (test tube) test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures

• computerized drug trials
• computer models and simulations
• stem cell and genetic testing methods
• non-invasive imaging techniques such as MRIs and CT Scans
• microdosing (in which humans are given very low quantities of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without affecting the whole body system) (“Alternatives in Testing”)

Compared to experimentation on a whole animal, human models produce results more specific to human functions and can target reactions to medications in isolated parts of the body. Perhaps one of the most lethal trials to ever exist in animal research is the Lethal Dose 50 test that measures the concentration of toxicity in a substance that it would take to kill an organism; in these experiments, animals are injected with poisonous substances and 50% of the subjects inevitably die. The test is both wasteful in animal life and highly unreliable because of its difficult application to humans. Luckily, Dr. Bjӧrn Ekwall invented an alternative to this practice that involves testing on donated human tissue and provides results with a “precision rate of 77-84% accuracy compared to the LD50 rate of 52-60%” ("Alternatives in Testing"). Luckily, the LD50 test was abolished from laboratories in 2002, yet many programs still remain that are also in serious need of overhaul.

External procedures, such as testing on the skin and eyes, are prime examples. The Draize eye irritancy tests involves the application of an irritant to the surface of the eye, yet the structure and tear-production of the rabbit (the test subject of choice) and the human eye vary significantly. “Indeed, when comparing rabbit to human data on duration of eye inflammation after exposure to 14 household products, they differed by a factor of 18 to 250” (Anderegg). Like comparing apples to oranges, research animals and humans are too dissimilar for efficient testing. EpiDerm skin trials further demonstrate this medical flaw: compared to rabbit subjects, EpiDerm’s make-up of cultured human cells facilitates 100% accuracy in identifying chemical skin irritants. The rabbit’s resulted in 40% error rate (“Alternatives in Testing”). Lab animals, whose bodies can be 50 times smaller and life spans 50 times shorter, are simply not adequate replacements to the human race.

As we speak, there are creatures in labs being poked, prodded, and subjected to severe stress only to produce findings that may or may not be accurate. It takes a long time for scientists to raise lab animals to full development for testing and each minute has a price tag encompassing the equipment, food, and housing required to keep the animals alive. Human models are severely low-maintenance alternatives that provide more precise results and can be utilized to examine specific body parts and functioning systems. If we re-evaluate the corrupt, destructive practices of animal testing, it is possible that we can save both innocent animal lives in the short term and human lives for years to come.

Works Cited

 Anderegg, Christopher, M.D., Kathy Archibald, B. Sc., Jarodd Bailey, Ph. D., Murray J. Cohen, M.D., Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D., and John J. Pippin, M.D. A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation. Cleveland: Medical Research Modernization Committee, 2006. Print

 "Alternatives in Testing." Neavs.org. New England Anti Vivi-Section Society, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2012. <http://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing>

 Belgium. European Economic Community. Ministry of Agriculture and Veterinary Services. Animal Experimentation- Legislation and Protection. By J. Belot, Dr. N.p.: n.p., 1986. Eur-Lex. Web. 30 Sept. 2012. <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31986L0609:EN:NOT>

Hajar, Rachel. "Animal Testing and Medicine." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 01 July 2005. Web. 04 Oct. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/>.

Knight, Andrew. "Animal Testing Isn't Just an Ethical Problem-€“ Let's Invest in Safer Methods." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 12 July 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/animal-testing-safer-methods>

 "Questions and Answers About Biomedical Research : The Humane Society of the United States." The Humane Society of the United States. N.p., 28 Sept. 2009. Web. 20 Sept. 2012. 

The Price to Pay for Chemical Fertilizers in Sub-Saharan Africa

In some parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, farmers use pepper fruits, ash, and lime to protect their grains from bothersome pests. Although Americans typically associate pesticides with an image of a bright orange bottle containing chemicals, natural ingredients characterize this Sub-Saharan African mixture. The people of Sub-Saharan Africa need to produce successful crops, as eighty percent of the region’s population depends on some form of agriculture to make a profit (Mkpado & Onuoha, 1). An article in the March 2011 issue of Nature argued that chemical fertilizers, also known as inorganic fertilizers, best improve agricultural production. Although this article discusses the short-term benefits of chemical fertilizers, low-input technologies, like the mixture of pepper fruits, ash, and lime, pose greater long-term advantages. Farmers should use low-input technologies rather than chemical fertilizers because low-input technologies cost less and preserve the health of soil, which is fundamental to Sub-Saharan Africa’s productivity.

The negative aspects of chemical fertilizers and the advantages of low-input technologies outweigh the possible benefits of chemical fertilizers. Unlike organic fertilizers, inorganic fertilizers release their nutrients into the soil quickly so that crops grow faster. However, chemical fertilizers decrease the soil’s quality because of their high concentrations of mineral salt. So although inorganic fertilizers cause crops to grow faster, they destroy soil and prevent future farming. Additionally, boosting crop yield functions only as a short-term benefit. Even people who support the use of chemical fertilizers, such as the writer of the Nature article, realize that this process can only work for a limited time until soil degrades completely: “Improved access to fertilizer, although essential at present, is not the best long-term solution. Research must continue to reduce reliance on chemicals and to make their use more efficient” (Nature). Low-input technologies, also known as green techniques, work to preserve what naturally exists in a community while chemical fertilizers do not (Mkpado & Onuoha, 1). In other words, green techniques use materials that already exist in a particular place to create appropriate and low-cost methods of farming.

Farmers in Fada N'Gourma, a city in Burkina Faso, applied
human excreta for six to ten months to their crops and
achieved great results as opposed to using chemical fertilizers.
Another example of inexpensive low-input technology
(Sustainable Sanitation).

This significant difference between low-input technologies and chemical fertilizers becomes even more important when we consider what products farmers can afford. Unlike inorganic fertilizers, which farmers have to import, green techniques come from a farmer’s community. News reporter Natasha Gilbert discussed the problem of imported chemical fertilizers’ cost: “Cost is one of the biggest problems. Because of transport expenses, farmers in inland Africa pay more than twice as much for fertilizer as farmers in Europe” (Gilbert, 1). In contrast to the expense of imported substances, farmers can use already existent shrubs and hedges to add nutrients to their land (El-Hai & Diab & Ahmed, 261). Also, mixing pepper fruits, ash, and lime native to the region creates a more inexpensive pest-control substance. These low-input technologies not only cost less, they don’t add any unwanted or unknown chemicals into the soil. In addition to the initial cost of fertilizers, we have to think about the added costs of inorganic fertilizers. These manufactured products have a cyclical effect, which begins with a farmer using chemical fertilizers to boost his crop yield for one season. Season after season, the farmer continues to use these fertilizers because of the increased crop yield. Although crop yield increases, soil quality deteriorates. To combat the soil’s ruin, a farmer can buy more fertilizers to quickly restore nutrients to the crops. Then, the farmer can return to using the original chemical fertilizers until he needs to replenish his soil’s nutrients with additional, expensive fertilizer. The following quotation describes the second half of this phenomenon, the use of nutrient replenishing fertilizer: “Use of mineral fertilizers is usually recommended to replenish the nutrient depletion. Limitation on its use is the high cost of imported fertilizers and supply shortage in local markets” (El-Hai & Diab & Ahmed, 261). Farmers begin the cycle of buying costly chemical fertilizers, and this cycle continues because inorganic fertilizers destroy soil’s nutrients. The high cost of fertilizers should deter farmers from using these expensive imports and instead steer them toward using the less costly low-input technologies.

Another example of low-input technology’s use in sub-Saharan Africa. In this photograph, a farmer in Malawi stands near his crops after using an intense process of rotating and intercropping. Of these new methods, the farmer said, “People should not burn residues, because there is life. I’ve also seen that, in heavy storms, maize plants in conservation agriculture plots are less likely to lodge. I promise you, I will not stop using conservation agriculture” (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center).

Cracked dirt in Mauritania. This arid soil has caused
extreme food shortages. Clearly, the future of Sub-Saharan Africa
depends on the health of its soil (Oxfam International).

Farmers should use less costly low-input technologies because they also preserve the quality of soil, which is necessary for the long-term success of Sub-Saharan Africa’s productivity. Productivity in this region relies on the success of agriculture, as agricultural development can lead to the development of many other industries: “Through agricultural development and raising income and the purchasing power of those people, increased demand on output of non-agricultural sectors will be created. Therefore, it can be said that agricultural development is the core of development of other sectors in most of African countries” (El-Hai & Diab & Ahmed, 260). Some experts have even argued that soil quality determines a country’s economic independence in the long run, saying, “Increasingly, infertile soil is the key constraint to greater crop production and food self-sufficiency in Sub-Saharan Africa” (Vlek, 328). Since Sub-Saharan Africa’s economic independence depends on long-term agricultural success, farmers need to think about the consequences of using chemical fertilizers that destroy soil. Ceaser Mkandawire, author of "Assessing Utilization of Low-Input Agricultural Technologies,” argues that as people have become more concerned with the world’s limited resources and as researchers have realized how a disintegrating environment limits Africa’s agricultural success, maintaining healthy land has become fundamental to farmers. Mkandawire’s argument underscores how farmers should be more concerned with the overall health of their land rather than just the annual crop yield boosted by chemical fertilizers. Mkandawire uses quantitative evidence from studies that indicate how the ruin of soil reduces the “productivity of land about 1 percent a year” (Mkandawire, 58). Mkandawire also cites an interview with an agricultural expert from the Malawi Organic Growers Association, who notes that organic farming techniques have rejuvenated ruined soil while also allowing farmers to receive more secure income because of their diversified crops (Mkandawire, 62-64). For instance, “ashing cattle manure,” a low-input technology used in Zambia, improves the pH and moisture-holding abilities of soil by spreading cattle manure over crops (Mkpado & Onuoha, 1). Mkandawire’s claim repudiates the idea that expediency of crop yield is more important than chemical fertilizers’ unhealthy effects on soil.

To allow Sub-Saharan African farming to flourish, farmers need to recognize how much healthier and less costly low-input technologies are than chemical fertilizers. People argue that these inorganic products can boost crop growth in the short term, but ultimately, soil health has become so important to the success of long-term agriculture that farmers should dispose of chemical fertilizers. Additionally, the use of low-input technologies illustrates another benefit attractive to African farmers: these technologies are native. Meaning, they belong to specific farmers and communities; they aren’t imported. As Egbezor Uchendu argues in his book, Beyond the Primary Commodity Trap: Essays on Politics and Poverty in Africa, breaking the cycle of poverty is important, but breaking that cycle actually means something when Africans do it themselves (Uchendu, 99-103). When Africans can rely on themselves to find the answers to their own pressing issues. Re-evaluating the use of low-input technologies rather than farming with chemical fertilizers imported from all over the world could thus usher in an era of thriving agricultural productivity and independence in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Works Cited

“African agriculture: Dirt poor.” Nature 483.7391 (2012): n. pag. Nature. 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. < http://www.nature.com/news/african-agriculture-dirt-poor-1.10311>.

Beth. 2009. Graphic. Flicker. 1 Oct 2012.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/flahertyb/3874710086/>.

El-Hai, Mahmoud, Diab, Abdel-Kader, and Ahmed, Sayed. "Prospective of Agricultural Development in Africa." Growth and Development in Africa. Ed. Diery Seck and Ed. Dipo Busari. Trenton: Africa World Press, Inc, 2009. 235-282. Print.

"Food for Thought." Nature 483.7391 (2012): n. pag. Nature. 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html>.

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. 2006. Photograph. Flicker. 1 Oct 2012. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/cimmyt/7337558700/>.

Mkandawire, Ceasar H. "Assessing Utilization of Low-Input Agricultural Technologies (LIATs) In Malawi: Adoption And Challenges For the Malawian Subsistence Farmers." Low-Input Agricultural Technologies for Sub-Saharan Africa. Vol. 4. Berlin: Frankfurt, M, 2011. 57-70. Print.

Mkpado, M, and R Onuoha. "Refined Indigenous Knowledge as Sources of Low Input Agricultural Technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa Rural Communities: Nigerian Experience." International Journal of Rural Studies (IJRS). 15.2 (2008): 1-11. Web. 1 Oct. 2012. <http://www.vri-online.org.uk/ijrs/Oct2008/Low-input agricultural technologies in sub-saharan Africa.pdf>.

Oxfam International. 2012. Photograph. Flickr. 1 Oct 2012.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/oxfam/6909399053/>.

Sustainable Sanitation. 2007. Photograph. Flickr. 1 Oct 2012.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/5011408507/>.

Uchendu, Egbezor. Beyond the Primary Commodity Trap: Essays on Politics and Poverty in Africa. 1st ed. London: Adonis & Abbey, 2009. Print.


Vlek, PLG. "The Role of Fertilizers in Sustaining Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa." Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 26.1-3 (1990): 327-39. SpringerLink. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/j116371447874177/>.