The saga continues

The nuclear crisis is far from over. It was extremely depressing to read yesterday that the rating of the severity of the accident in Fukushima has been raised to 7, the worst on an international scale, to the same level as the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

A report in the New York Times reveals that:

The nearly monthlong delay in acknowledging the extent of these emissions is a fresh example of confused data and analysis from the Japanese, and put the authorities on the defensive about whether they have delayed or blocked the release of information to avoid alarming the public.

They wanted to avoid alarming the public? I mean, doesn't the public have the right to know, the right to have information in a timely manner? The public can decide for themselves whether they will be alarmed or not.

As I was reading an article in Conservation Magazine that discusses BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster last April, the description of what happened (i.e., how BP and the US government did not make public some vital information concerning the disaster) are strikingly similar:

For several weeks after the Deepwater Horizon rig collapsed last April 18, nobody knew how much oil the busted wellhead was releasing into the Gulf of Mexico—only that the quantity was huge. Without that critical data point, there was no way to gauge the growing size or potential impact of the disaster. Yet the people in charge of stopping the gusher seemed curiously uninterested in knowing the extent of the damage. BP declined to provide any estimate of the volume of oil erupting into the sea, saying it made no difference in their plans to cap the well or clean up the spill, while NOAA offered only a single estimate of 5,000 barrels per day.

The lack of reliable information on an enormous, unfolding disaster made little sense to many scientists and engineers following the news...

... Large-scale disasters almost always overwhelm government agencies. Bureaucracies are accustomed to moving slowly. And when they try to move fast, they hit red tape, turf conflicts, and political obstacles. And large oil companies (or other private organizations) will safeguard their own interests before the public’s... Worse, to minimize political or economic fallout, those linked to a disaster often downplay the severity of the situation or spin it to their own ends.

It depresses me to no end that we seem to be incapable of learning from our mistakes.

Image taken from http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp

Nuclear crisis continued

The past week has been a difficult one for me. I am surprised to find myself distracted very easily and frequently, making it difficult to concentrate on anything but the news in Japan. I think it is fortunate that we do not have cable TV. Last week I visited a Japanese friend who had her TV on to CNN, and during the short time I was there, horrific images were replayed over and over again. I am glad that I do not need to unnecessarily expose myself, and my daughter, to such violent images.

My primary information source is from the internet. The problem with the internet is that there is too much information available, and we never know what political or sensationalist agenda is behind each piece of information. The good thing about the internet is that we can find all different kinds of news and views. According to numerous internet sources, amounts of radioactive material have been detected in water, milk, and vegetables such as spinach, not only from Fukushima but in Tokyo, 220 km away. However, the Japanese government is informing the public that "the radiation levels exceeded the limits allowed by the government, but the products 'pose no immediate health risk'" (The Guardian, 19 March). According to the CNN, the World Health Organization has also declared that "short-term exposure to food contaminated by radiation from Japan's damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant poses no immediate health risk". But really, the question we should be asking ourselves is this: what is meant by "no immediate health risk"? What exactly are the reasoning behind these statements?

As an anthropologist who has documented the human environmental impact of nuclear weapons testing wrote in a commentary: "In this nuclear world, what is the meaning of 'safe'?" To quote a little more from her:

In a nuclear crisis, life becomes a nightmare for those people trying to make sense of the uncertainties. Imaginably, the questions are endless. Radiation is invisible, how do you know when you are in danger? How long will this danger persist? How can you reduce the hazard to yourself and family? What level of exposure is safe? How do you get access to vital information in time to prevent or minimize exposure? What are the potential risks of acute and chronic exposures? What are the related consequential damages of exposure? Whose information do you trust? How do you rebuild a healthy way of life in the aftermath of nuclear disaster? And the list of unknowns goes on. These questions are difficult to answer in the chaos and context of an ongoing disaster, and they become even more complicated by the fact that governments and the nuclear industry maintain tight control of information, operations, scientific research, and the biomedical lessons that shape public-health response. This regulation of information has been the case since the nuclear age began, and understanding this helps to illuminate why there is no clear consensus on what Japan's nuclear disaster means in terms of local and global human health.

Another worrisome development closer to home is this one: that "despite growing opposition sparked by the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan", Indonesia is proceeding with plans to build four nuclear reactors (IRIN, 21 March). This brings us to the question so aptly posed by an op-ed in The Washington Post: "If the competent and technologically brilliant Japanese can’t build a completely safe reactor, who can?"

But the Japanese, just like anyone else, make mistakes. Just this morning I read that people who had escaped in officially designated higher-ground shelters to escape the tsunamis were swept away, because such shelters were designed with 5.5m-high waves in mind, and the actual waves that engulfed the coasts of north-east Japan were up to 7.3m (JMA 2011). It's also reported that just a month prior, government regulators "approved a 10-year extension for the oldest of the six reactors at the power station" and that after the extension was granted, The Tokyo Electric Power Company admitted that "it had failed to inspect 33 pieces of equipment related to the cooling systems, including water pumps and diesel generators, at the power station’s six reactors.

I do not know if humans are capable of building "completely safe" nuclear power plants. So long as humans are capable of making mistakes, I suspect not. I hope we do not have to face another nuclear disaster to find out.

A social-natural disaster

Ever since the massive earthquake hit north-eastern Japan on 11 March, my email and SMS inboxes have been flooded with concerns from friends and colleagues. Living in a country where hazards strike and often turn into devastating disasters, I am not surprised to hear expressions of concern coming from strangers--shop keepers that I meet for the first time, for example.

Fortunately, no family member or close friends have been hurt directly from the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami. My parents' dog may suffer from a urinary track infection, as his daily walks have been limited due to temporary stopping of the elevators in my parents' 26-storey apartment building in central Tokyo. Another family member living in Tokyo had to walk 4 hours to get home, as the train services were stopped. But these inconveniences are minor compared to the damage and suffering of people directly affected by the earthquake and tsunami. My thoughts are with them.

At the same time, I worry immensely about the developments surrounding the nuclear power plants in Fukushima. State of nuclear emergency has been called, with six reactors reportedly having difficulties with their cooling systems (14 March, Sydney Morning Herald). I am not sure if we should be consoled by comments from experts who say that a partial meltdown "is not a disaster" and a complete meltdown is not likely (14 March, Reuters). What bothers me is the conflicting and contradictory information I am seeing in the various media, in Japanese and in English. In addition to the confusion, there is obviously much covering-up going on, and the truth to the extent of damage may only be uncovered later.

Having lived in two of the top ten countries with a high reliance on nuclear energy (France gets nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, while Japan's is 30%) (IAEA 2008), I cannot pretend to be a simple bystander to the whole issue.

The nuclear crisis in Japan is literally adding fuel to opposition to building of new reactors around the world (13 March, Beyond Nuclear). In Germany and Switzerland, plans to build or renew nuclear power plants are being and suspended (14 March, the Guardian).

The advantage of nuclear energy is that it does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide, so it does not emit greenhouse gasses (Darwill 2010). It has been touted by many a viable option to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. However, the question we should ask ourselves is this: do we want to resort to nuclear power to combat climate change?

In addition to problems such as environmental pollution (radioactive contamination and nuclear waste disposal) and concerns over safety such as those we are currently facing in Japan, the fundamental issue we should be considering is that “nuclear power is often nothing more than a way to avoid changing anything” (Solnit 2007). Nuclear power plants, like power plants that rely on fossil fuel, retain “the big infrastructure of centralized power production and […] the habits of obscene consumption that rely on big power”. Simply substituting nuclear with fossil fuel is not changing the fundamental problem we have: our increased need for energy.

Nearly ten years ago, I had a conversation with Prof Akio Morishima, former President of the Central Environmental Council of the Environment Agency of Japan. After learning that he spent much of his career fighting for victims of environmental pollution during Japan’s rapid economic growth in the 1960s and 70s, I was surprised to hear that he supported the development of nuclear energy. While admitting that nuclear energy is problematic, he asked, "but what are the alternatives?" The possibility that our increasing need for energy could be curbed had not occurred to him.

The challenge we thus face is this: to fundamentally change the way we live and suppress our insatiable energy use. Unless we do so, it is unlikely we can stop climate change. And that, in my opinion, is what makes climate change an extremely contentious issue.

I will be closely following the developments surrounding the nuclear power plants. This is a human-made disaster following a geological disaster.

Top photo taken from http://www.smh.com.au/environment/bigpics/japan-disaster, subtitled "Houses are swept by a tsunami in Natori City in northeastern Japan on March 11, 2011".

あけましておめでとうございます / Happy New Year / Selamat Tahun Baru 2011

２０１０年９月下旬以降は、日本一時帰国、アフリカ、アメリカ、マレーシア、東チモールへの出張があり、ブログの更新がなかなかできなかったことを反省しています。２０１１年はより定期的に、ジャカルタやインドネシアに関することをアップデートしていきたいと思っています。２０１１年が皆にとって、よい年になりますように。

My new year's resolution is to explore and learn more from what Indonesia has to offer.
May the year 2011 be filled with new discoveries for everyone!

Child abuse and neglect

Ever since I gave birth to June, I find that any news item on child abuse and/or neglect totally breaks my heart. Every time I look at my daughter, I cannot help but wonder: how could anyone have feelings other than complete love and devotion for their child? Yet child abuse occurs daily. I know that I am very lucky because I have a child who hardly gives us any trouble. I have a partner who adores her and looks after her. We have a maid/nanny who also takes good care of her. In addition to all the help I have in raising June, I also have fond memories of my childhood and the love given to me by my own parents. I am aware that child abusers have often been abused as children, so I am fortunate to be able to pass on to June love, instead of abuse.

As I have been following the media coverage about the 23-year old single mother who abandoned her two young children in her apartment and thus starved them to death, the initial shock has been replaced by sadness, then with anger. The anger is not directed at the mother, though. It is directed at the media, and at the young woman's family.

I am in no way denying the atrocious neglect committed by the mother. How could someone in charge of two young lives be so irresponsible? She says she wanted some time of her own. Well, the moment we give birth, we mothers no longer have time of our own. That's the life of a mother. Didn't she think about this before, and after, she became a mother?

But these descriptions of the young mother's behaviour, and the accusations against her, make me more sad than anything else. What makes me angry, though, is the way the media has chosen to depict the mother: she is an irresponsible prostitute who killed her children. She was selfish, she wanted her freedom, and went partying and enjoyed herself while her children were slowly starving to death.

But the question that haunts me is this: WHY, oh why, was this young woman prostituting herself? Why did she feel like she did not have any freedom? Because no one was helping her raise her children, that's why. What's conspicuously missing in most of the media coverage is mention of this woman's family members--people who, in my opinion, should have been providing her with the support she needed to raise her children. How could it be that she was tasked with raising two children all by herself--without any support from her former husband, her parents, her ex-parents-in-law? What about daycare centres where she could have placed her children? How on earth does anyone expect a young woman with limited skills--who had left her job to give birth to and raise her children--to raise them after she was divorced? If she had financial support from her ex-husband or other family members, she probably would not have had to resort to selling her body to make a living and raise her children; if she had childcare support, she would not have felt so trapped, so lonely, so constrained, in raising her children. In the Japan Times article above, the former mother-in-law of the mother is quoted as saying "I hate her now". Well, I would like to say to her: hate yourself, for not helping the mother, and your grandchildren.

The media's focus on the mother and the inability of the child abuse SOS centre that had not sufficiently followed up on repeated anonymous phone calls by a fellow resident of the apartment building is pointing the finger in the wrong direction, and will not save any more child abuse and neglect cases in the future. This is because it is not just the young mother that failed her children. It is her family, and the society that failed them.

Another news item that's been prevalent in the media is that many centenarians in Japan are missing. Children of these supposed centenarians have been quoted as saying that they have not seen their parents for decades. So it's not just the children we are neglecting--but also, the old. What has our society come to? How can any society call itself civilized, and yet neglect the young and the old?

May the souls of the young children rest in peace.

Photo by by robertpaulyoung, available from flickr.com/photos/robertpaulyoung/151452810/

あけましておめでとうございます / Happy New Year / Bonne Année 2010

２００９年に釧路湿原でとった、２重の虹です。

２０１０年が皆にとって、よい年になりますように。

This beautiful photo of a double rainbow was taken in Kushiro Wetlands, Hokkaido.

May the year 2010 be filled with happiness, wonder & new discoveries for everyone.

The danger of a single story

A friend recently forwarded me the link to a very inspiring speech by one of my favourite authors: Chimamanda Adichie, whose novel, Half of A Yellow Sun, I reviewed over a year ago.

What really rang true was what she said about stereotypes:

The single story creates stereotypes. And the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story.

It is so easy to fall into this pitfall, because it is so easy to read, understand, and believe in, one story. Not succuumbing to stereotypes means going through the trouble of reading multiple stories, in order to capture diversity.

As I embark on a new voyage next year, I must remind myself constantly of this danger.

I also must do everything I can, to make sure that the things I introduce to June, all books I give her, tell multiple stories.

あけましておめでとうございます / Happy New Year / Bonne Année 2009

２００９年が皆にとって、よい年になりますように。

Best wishes for the year 2009.

Meilleurs voeux pour l'année 2009.

Hello world!

Hi there! Let me introduce myself. I am June, Blanca's daughter, and I was born on 30 October 2008. I wasn't quite ready to be born, but they forced me out, because my mother's blood pressure was soaring and this was problematic for both of us. Although I had reached term, since I only weighed 2150g and measured 46cm, I was put in neonatal unit for a few days. Since being discharged after spending 10 days in the hospital, I have regained my birth weight and am doing well.

I am sure that Mum will continue with her musings and rants between nursings--but if she doesn't write very often, you have to be patient, because I am a bit demanding and she is quite sleep-deprived!

That's it from me now. Bye!

Great Expectations

The recent arrival of a new immediate supervisor at my work place has totally disrupted the status quo and has completely uprooted my work plans. It has been two months since the whole process started, and I am still not able to fully process, nor deal with, the implications of these changes.

I will not go into the details, but in brief, what has happened is this: this new person, in his new role as an "overseer" of his subordinates, tried to bully me into giving up half of the budget that had been allocated under my responsibility. In doing so, he succeeded in completely disrupting the plan of activities that had been developed for the next two years, for one of the activities I was responsible for managing. An activity that I had spent the past three years of my work life developing.

My initial reaction was simply, anger and sadness. In the course of a desperate attempt to try to effectively deal with the problem, my anger and sadness turned into frustration. Frustrated by the fact that my boss (who is above the new immediate supervisor), who claims himself to be a "non-hierarchical guy", has nevertheless decided to give the nod of approval to the actions of this person instead of supporting me, despite acknowledging the extremely tyrannical, dominant and hierarchical way in which the new person has dealt with me. Frustrated that despite the initial demonstration of solidarity, and despite my attempts to patch things up the best way possible, the experts with whom I had worked very closely over a period of couple of years, and for whom I had immense respect for, have decided to severe their affiliation with the activity, disgusted with the way the whole matter has been handled by both this new supervisor and the boss.

Frustrated is probably not the right word; disappointed is not even it; the feeling borders on betrayal. Am I exaggerating? Perhaps I had vested too much into this activity and the experts affiliated with it. Perhaps I had believed too blindly on the boss—the first in over 5 bosses that I have had in my career, whom I had trusted and considered as my "spiritual father". Perhaps this is what you get for taking the status quo for granted.

Although I have been successful in taking back the management responsibility of this activity, the fact remains: the work plans have been disrupted, some of the core experts are gone, and the experts that remain are standing on guard, unsure of what will happen next. I feel as if finding myself being forced to take command of a ship that has come out of a storm, after it been abandoned by the captain, taking the steer with him. I have the ship, but what is there to do? Do I want to do anything with it? Should I simply jump ship as well? Or should I stay, to try to steer the ship in the right direction, under the watchful eyes of the members that remain?

The lesson to be learned? I am not sure. But in considering all the "perhaps" I have mentioned above, it has made me think twice about the wisdom of fully and wholeheartedly committing to work. This, in addition to some of the frustrations about the organization for which I work that I have already expressed, have made me seriously think about my future with the organization. I feel strongly that perhaps I have reached a turning point in my life. Is it a coincidence that this has happened at a time when I am about to embark on motherhood, another momentous time in my life? It could be that it is time I start pursuing another path that I have been considering for the past couple of years. Whatever may happen, I will make sure that I maintain a positive and proactive role in the changes that could take place in my life.

Great expectations lie ahead.

Maintaining one's integrity

Last weekend I ran into a Free Tibet demonstration--a cause that I am genuinely sympathetic to. I had to refrain myself from joining the group, however. And there is a reason--because I am an international civil servant.

In all my adult life I have never hesitated to join causes which I felt were important; I have participated in Take Back the Night demonstrations in the US, walked on the streets of Minnesota and Vancouver to fight against racism, and joined forces with my sisters and brothers to combat homophobia, both in Vancouver and Tokyo. There is a reason why I have never participated in a demonstration in France, a country where the right to participate in demonstrations is revered. When I joined my organization four years ago, I was given a small leaflet titled "Report on Standards of Conduct in the International Civil Service". Like any conscientious and enthusiastic employee, I read it.

This booklet starts off by telling us that:

One of the fundamental, if not paramount, standards of conduct derives from the requirement of integrity... For the international official, however, the [United Nations] Charter also requires integrity as a public official, and especially as an international public official... It follows that he must subordinate his private interests and avoid placing himself in a position where those interests would conflict with the interests of the organization he serves [paragraph 4; emphasis original].

We are also told:

To integrity, international outlook and independence, must be added impartiality. Impartiality implies objectivity, lack of bias, tolerance, restraint - particularly when political or religious disputes or differences arise. The staff member's personal views and convictions remain inviolate, but he has not the freedom of a private person to "take sides"... or public express his convictions on matters of a controversial nature... [paragraph 8].

So, like a good international civil servant, I refrain. I refrain from publicly expressing my convictions on matters that are important to me. I find it so contradictory, however, because respect for human rights and cultural diversity are exactly the things the organization to which I belong promote! But of course we are not allowed to express our personal opinions on them, so as not to offend the Member State.

The more I think about it, however, the more I start reconsidering my job as an international civil servant--how can one maintain her integrity if she is denied the right to be true to her values and morals, her wish for a better and peaceful world?

あけましておめでとうございます / Happy New Year / Bonne Année 2008

２００８年が皆にとって、よい年になりますように。

Best wishes for the year 2008.

Meilleurs voeux pour l'année 2008.

Thanks Blanco! 来年もよろしく。

As another year draws to the end, one cannot help but to reflect on the year that is soon to be over. Unfortunately, the year 2007 wasn't the best year for me, so in an attempt to think positively, I have decided to pay tribute to Blanco, my companion of 7.5 years.

During the holiday season, bookstores are filled with feel-good titles such as "Everything I Need to Know I Learned from My Dog" and "It's Okay to Miss the Bed on the First Jump: And Other Life Lessons I Learned from Dogs". Cheesy anecdotes aside, I have learned a great deal from my dog, and my horizons have been vastly expanded. Three things spring to mind in my reflection.

Patience: those who have known me for a long time have remarked how patient I have become over the years (though I know there's still lots of room for improvement!). Some attribute this to my partner, who is one of the most patient people I know, but I would tend to disagree! The ordeals we had to go through, especially when Blanco was a puppy--coming home to find the floor covered with excrement, waking up to see my favourite rug being chewed upon and completely ruined, and realizing that no matter how many times we tell him NOT to do something, a dog is more often than not governed by his whims--have taught us that although most things in life can be cleaned or replaced, there are certain things we simply have to learn to live with.

Time for pondering: although it can be a bit of a nuisance on busy mornings, my daily walks with Blanco have given me time to think: whether to plan for an important meeting, or to strategize how to deal with an unpleasant colleague. Often, though, I simply let my thoughts wander, an extremely extravagant way to spend half an hour each day.

Discover new things: the reason we know our neighbourhood so well is because of the walks we take with Blanco. However, I recently learned that I didn't know our neighbourhood as well as I'd thought: while taking Blanco for a walk, a stranger accosted me to ask for directions to a prison that I didn't know existed, right close to our house! Away from home, when we travel with Blanco, we usually spend a lot of time walking, thus we see things we would never have seen had we been on a bus, tram, or simply had stayed indoors. We have met many people through him--mostly other dog owners--but we are also often approached by total strangers when we are with him; curious children, tourists asking for directions, dog lovers, and beggars.

Thanks, Blanco, for all that you have given us. I am a better person thanks to you. Keep me happy and help me grow in the years to come.

マダガスカルのストリートチルドレン

先日、友人が立ち上げたＮＰＯ、Déchaîne ton Cœur（意訳：君の心を開く）の総会に行ってきました。

この団体は、マダガスカルのストリートチルドレンに安全な場所で食べ物を与え、そして教育を受けることができるよう（きちんと学校に行かれるよう、ノートや洋服などを供給したり、勉強を助けてあげる）助ける団体です。また、スポーツなどの課外活動を通じて学校をより楽しくさせてあげるのも目的のひとつのようです。まだサイトは立ち上がっていないようですが一応URLは http://www.dechainetoncoeur.fr/

この団体の会員になるための会費は年間３０ユーロ（約４５００円）。このうち２０ユーロは、マダガスカルにあるＮＧＯ、Graines de bitume （意訳：アスファルトの子供）が直接使うそうです。この２０ユーロ、マダガスカルの子供一人に一年間食べ物を与え教育を受けるために必要な金額なんだそうです。

ちなみに、パリで毎日レストランで昼食に使うのは平均１５ユーロ。やるせない。

About Blanca

I consider myself a global nomad, having lived for more than four years each in Canada, Japan, Australia, US, and France. I have been living in Jakarta, Indonesia, for nearly three years.

Whenever the question "where are you from?" is posed, I often challenge people. I say, you need to be more precise, do you want to know where I was born, which countries I grew up in, which countries and cultures do I identify most with, what my nationalities are, or which country my ancestors have lived in?

It was my father's various postings that caused my nomadism from early on. Since the age of 19, though, it has been my own choice to lead such a life.

I work in the field of environment, and surprisingly rare in this profession, I am a "green" person in my private life as well. Conserving the environment, reducing my ecological footprint, and living sustainably are things I am passionate about.

I also consider myself a feminist, because I strongly believe that an equitable world without sexism is a world that is better for everyone--for both men and women.