DILI, East Timor - A strong earthquake struck off the coast of East Timor on Wednesday, prompting authorities to briefly issue a tsunami alert — but no large waves hit the tiny nation's coast.
The 6.2 magnitude tremor struck 160 miles northeast of the capital, Dili, in Indonesia's Banda Sea at a depth of 6 miles, the U.S. Geological Survey said. Residents in the capital did not feel any shaking and there were no immediate reports of damage or injuries.
Indonesia's Meteorological and Geophysics agency issued a tsunami alert, saying the quake had been powerful enough to generate giant waves. The warning was later retracted.
East Timor, a former Portuguese colony that became Asia's youngest country after breaking from Indonesia in 1999, sits along a series of faultlines and volcanos known as the Pacific Ring of Fire.
In December 2004, a massive earthquake struck off Indonesia's Sumatra and triggered a tsunami that killed more than 230,000 people in a dozen countries, including 160,000 people in Indonesia's westernmost province of Aceh.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
FOREST MANAGEMENT AND LOSS
Redwood tree in northern California redwood forest, where many redwood trees are managed for preservation and longevity, rather than harvest for wood production.
Coastal Douglas fir woodland in northwest Oregon.The scientific study of forest species and their interaction with the environment is referred to as forest ecology, while the management of forests is often referred to as forestry. Forest management has changed considerably over the last few centuries, with rapid changes from the 1980s onwards culminating in a practice now referred to as sustainable forest management. Forest ecologists concentrate on forest patterns and processes, usually with the aim of elucidating cause and effect relationships. Foresters who practice sustainable forest management focus on the integration of ecological, social and economic values, often in consultation with local communities and other stakeholders.
Anthropogenic factors that can affect forests include logging, human-caused forest fires, acid rain, and introduced species, among other things. There are also many natural factors that can also cause changes in forests over time including forest fires, insects, diseases, weather, competition between species, etc. In 1997, the World Resources Institute recorded that only 20% of the world's original forests remained in large intact tracts of undisturbed forest [4]. More than 75% of these intact forests lie in three countries - the Boreal forests of Russia and Canada and the rainforest of Brazil. In 2006 this information on intact forests was updated using latest available satellite imagery.
Canada has about 4,020,000 km² of forest land. More than 90% of forest land is publicly owned and about 50% of the total forest area is allocated for harvesting. These allocated areas are managed using the principles of sustainable forest management, which includes extensive consultation with local stakeholders. About eight percent of Canada’s forest is legally protected from resource development (Global Forest Watch Canada)(Natural Resources Canada). Much more forest land — about 40 percent of the total forest land base — is subject to varying degrees of protection through processes such as integrated land-use planning or defined management areas such as certified forests (Natural Resources Canada). By December 2006, over 1,237,000 square kilometres of forest land in Canada (about half the global total) had been certified as being sustainably managed (Canadian Sustainable Forestry Certification Coalition). Clearcutting is usually the harvest method of choice and companies are required by law to ensure that harvested areas are adequately regenerated. Most Canadian provinces have regulations limiting the size of clearcuts, although some older clearcuts can range upwards of 110 km² (20,000 acres) in size which were cut over several years.
In the United States, most forests have historically been affected by humans to some degree, though in recent years improved forestry practices has helped regulate or moderate large scale or severe impacts. However the United States Forest Service estimates that every year about 6,000 km² (1.5 million acres) of the nation’s 3,000,000 km² (750 million acres) of forest land is lost to urban sprawl and development. It is expected that the South alone will lose 80,000 to 100,000 km² (20 to 25 million acres) to development. However, in many areas of the United States, the area of forest is stable or increasing, particularly in many northern states.
Globally two broad types of forests can be identified: natural and anthropogenic[citation needed].
Natural forests contain mainly natural patterns of biodiversity in established seral patterns, and they contain mainly species native to the region and habitat. The natural formations and processes have not been affected by humans with a frequency or intensity to change the natural structure and components of the habitat.
Anthropogenic forests have been created by humans or sufficiently affected by humans to change or remove natural seral patterns. They often contain significant elements of species which were originally from other regions or habitats.
Coastal Douglas fir woodland in northwest Oregon.The scientific study of forest species and their interaction with the environment is referred to as forest ecology, while the management of forests is often referred to as forestry. Forest management has changed considerably over the last few centuries, with rapid changes from the 1980s onwards culminating in a practice now referred to as sustainable forest management. Forest ecologists concentrate on forest patterns and processes, usually with the aim of elucidating cause and effect relationships. Foresters who practice sustainable forest management focus on the integration of ecological, social and economic values, often in consultation with local communities and other stakeholders.
Anthropogenic factors that can affect forests include logging, human-caused forest fires, acid rain, and introduced species, among other things. There are also many natural factors that can also cause changes in forests over time including forest fires, insects, diseases, weather, competition between species, etc. In 1997, the World Resources Institute recorded that only 20% of the world's original forests remained in large intact tracts of undisturbed forest [4]. More than 75% of these intact forests lie in three countries - the Boreal forests of Russia and Canada and the rainforest of Brazil. In 2006 this information on intact forests was updated using latest available satellite imagery.
Canada has about 4,020,000 km² of forest land. More than 90% of forest land is publicly owned and about 50% of the total forest area is allocated for harvesting. These allocated areas are managed using the principles of sustainable forest management, which includes extensive consultation with local stakeholders. About eight percent of Canada’s forest is legally protected from resource development (Global Forest Watch Canada)(Natural Resources Canada). Much more forest land — about 40 percent of the total forest land base — is subject to varying degrees of protection through processes such as integrated land-use planning or defined management areas such as certified forests (Natural Resources Canada). By December 2006, over 1,237,000 square kilometres of forest land in Canada (about half the global total) had been certified as being sustainably managed (Canadian Sustainable Forestry Certification Coalition). Clearcutting is usually the harvest method of choice and companies are required by law to ensure that harvested areas are adequately regenerated. Most Canadian provinces have regulations limiting the size of clearcuts, although some older clearcuts can range upwards of 110 km² (20,000 acres) in size which were cut over several years.
In the United States, most forests have historically been affected by humans to some degree, though in recent years improved forestry practices has helped regulate or moderate large scale or severe impacts. However the United States Forest Service estimates that every year about 6,000 km² (1.5 million acres) of the nation’s 3,000,000 km² (750 million acres) of forest land is lost to urban sprawl and development. It is expected that the South alone will lose 80,000 to 100,000 km² (20 to 25 million acres) to development. However, in many areas of the United States, the area of forest is stable or increasing, particularly in many northern states.
Globally two broad types of forests can be identified: natural and anthropogenic[citation needed].
Natural forests contain mainly natural patterns of biodiversity in established seral patterns, and they contain mainly species native to the region and habitat. The natural formations and processes have not been affected by humans with a frequency or intensity to change the natural structure and components of the habitat.
Anthropogenic forests have been created by humans or sufficiently affected by humans to change or remove natural seral patterns. They often contain significant elements of species which were originally from other regions or habitats.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
AUSTRALIA TO APOLOGISE TO ABORIGINES
CANBERRA, Australia - Australia will issue its first formal apology to its indigenous people next month, the government announced Wednesday, a milestone that could ease tensions with a minority whose mixed-blood children were once taken away on the premise that their race was doomed.
The Feb. 13 apology to the so-called "stolen generations" of Aborigines will be the first item of business for the new Parliament, Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin said. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, whose Labor Party won November elections, had promised to push for an apology, an issue that has divided Australians for a decade,
"The apology will be made on behalf of the Australian government and does not attribute guilt to the current generation of Australian people," Macklin said in a statement.
Rudd has refused demands from some Aboriginal leaders to pay compensation for the suffering of broken families. Activist Michael Mansell, who is legal director of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Center, has urged the government to set up an $882 million compensation fund.
Macklin did not mention compensation Wednesday. But she said she sought broad input on the wording of the apology, which she hoped would signal the beginning of a new relationship between Australia and its original inhabitants, who number about 450,000 among a population of 21 million. Aborigines are the poorest ethnic group in Australia and are most likely to be jailed, unemployed and illiterate.
"Once we establish this respect, the government can work with indigenous communities to improve services aimed at closing the 17-year life expectancy gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians," she said.
Christine King of the Stolen Generations Alliance, one of the key indigenous groups the government has consulted in crafting the apology, said she was "overwhelmed" that a date had finally been set.
"Older people thought they would never live to see this day," King said through tears. "It's very emotional for me and it's very important."
Australia has had a decade-long debate about how best to acknowledge Aborigines who were affected by a string of 20th century policies that separated mixed-blood Aboriginal children from their families — the cohort frequently referred to as Australia's stolen generation.
From 1910 until the 1970s, around 100,000 mostly mixed-blood Aboriginal children were taken from their parents under state and federal laws based on a premise that Aborigines were a doomed race and saving the children was a humane alternative.
A national inquiry in 1997 found that many children taken from their families suffered long-term psychological effects stemming from the loss of family and culture.
The inquiry recommended that state and federal authorities apologize and compensate those removed from their families. But then-Prime Minister John Howard steadfastly refused to do either, saying his government should not be held responsible for the policies of former officials.
Barbara Livesey, chief executive of Reconciliation Australia, a government-commissioned agency tasked with bringing black and white Australians together, said the apology on the day after Parliament resumes for the first time since the November elections would be historic.
"It's a moment that all Australians should feel incredibly proud of, that we're recognizing the mistakes of the past," she said.
But opposition leader Brendan Nelson, whose conservative Liberal Party was thrown out of office in November after almost 12 years in power, questioned whether the apology deserved to be the new government's first item of business.
The Feb. 13 apology to the so-called "stolen generations" of Aborigines will be the first item of business for the new Parliament, Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin said. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, whose Labor Party won November elections, had promised to push for an apology, an issue that has divided Australians for a decade,
"The apology will be made on behalf of the Australian government and does not attribute guilt to the current generation of Australian people," Macklin said in a statement.
Rudd has refused demands from some Aboriginal leaders to pay compensation for the suffering of broken families. Activist Michael Mansell, who is legal director of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Center, has urged the government to set up an $882 million compensation fund.
Macklin did not mention compensation Wednesday. But she said she sought broad input on the wording of the apology, which she hoped would signal the beginning of a new relationship between Australia and its original inhabitants, who number about 450,000 among a population of 21 million. Aborigines are the poorest ethnic group in Australia and are most likely to be jailed, unemployed and illiterate.
"Once we establish this respect, the government can work with indigenous communities to improve services aimed at closing the 17-year life expectancy gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians," she said.
Christine King of the Stolen Generations Alliance, one of the key indigenous groups the government has consulted in crafting the apology, said she was "overwhelmed" that a date had finally been set.
"Older people thought they would never live to see this day," King said through tears. "It's very emotional for me and it's very important."
Australia has had a decade-long debate about how best to acknowledge Aborigines who were affected by a string of 20th century policies that separated mixed-blood Aboriginal children from their families — the cohort frequently referred to as Australia's stolen generation.
From 1910 until the 1970s, around 100,000 mostly mixed-blood Aboriginal children were taken from their parents under state and federal laws based on a premise that Aborigines were a doomed race and saving the children was a humane alternative.
A national inquiry in 1997 found that many children taken from their families suffered long-term psychological effects stemming from the loss of family and culture.
The inquiry recommended that state and federal authorities apologize and compensate those removed from their families. But then-Prime Minister John Howard steadfastly refused to do either, saying his government should not be held responsible for the policies of former officials.
Barbara Livesey, chief executive of Reconciliation Australia, a government-commissioned agency tasked with bringing black and white Australians together, said the apology on the day after Parliament resumes for the first time since the November elections would be historic.
"It's a moment that all Australians should feel incredibly proud of, that we're recognizing the mistakes of the past," she said.
But opposition leader Brendan Nelson, whose conservative Liberal Party was thrown out of office in November after almost 12 years in power, questioned whether the apology deserved to be the new government's first item of business.
Monday, December 10, 2007
BATLLING THE BLOOD SUCKERS
Just the kind of bug you want hanging around your ankle
(Globe file photo)
Helicopters are flitting around today over Bellingham, Medfield, and Millis. Why all the annoying buzzing? To reduce the amount of those other buzzing, biting annoyances -- mosquitoes.
The drenching rains earlier this month have spawned a bumper crop of mosquitoes, including aggressive breeds not usually encountered until summer, the director of the Norfolk County Mosquito Control Project said today.
As a result, the Norfolk mosquito control district has expanded its annual springtime spraying, said district director John Smith. Two helicopters took to the air today, dropping pellets containing a widely used pesticide that is favored by mosquito-control specialists because it kills bugs before they reach adulthood. Public health specialists believe the pesticide does not present a significant threat to the environment.
The helicopters this morning targeted Norwood, Canton, and Bellingham, and this afternoon moved to Medfield and Millis. On Wednesday, the helicopters are expected to shift to central Norfolk County and, on Thursday, Dedham, Quincy, and Weymouth.
The springtime treatments are usually restricted to wetlands, but because of the recent soaking rains they have been expanded to the flood plain of the Charles and Neponset rivers, Smith said. The current spraying is largely intended to limit the emergence of nuisance mosquitoes, as opposed to treatments later in the year, which are aimed at limiting the spread of diseases spread by mosquitoes, such as West Nile virus and Eastern equine encephalitis.
Even with about 12,000 acres treated, Smith said he still expects some mosquitoes to escape -- including the more aggressive summer breeds.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
MISCONCEPTIONS AND COMPENSATIONS
Color blindness is not the swapping of colors in the observer's eyes, just the resolution. It is analogous to myopia: is that fuzzy blob one long bus or two short ones parked end to end? Grass is never red, and stop signs are never green. The color impaired do not learn to call red "green" and vice versa. However, dichromats often confuse red and green items. For example, they may find it difficult to distinguish a Braeburn from a Granny Smith and in some cases, the red and green of a traffic light without other clues (e.g., shape or location). This is demonstrated in this simulation of the two types of apple as viewed by a trichromat or by a dichroma.
Anomalous Trichromats are often able to readily spot camouflage clothing, netting, and paint that has been designed for individuals with color-normal vision. For the same reasons a color-blind painter might use too much blue to paint a green foliage landscape, a similarly color-blind artillery spotter would perceive too little blue dye used in camouflage created to match the same landscape.
Traffic light colors are confusing to some dichromats: there is insufficient apparent difference between the red and amber and sodium street lamps and the green can be confused with a grubby white lamp. This is a risk factor on a high-speed undulating road where angular cues can't be used. British Rail color lamp signals use more easily identifiable colors: the red is really blood red, the amber is quite yellow and the green is a bluish color.
However dichromats tend to learn to see texture and shape. This lets them see through some camouflage patterns.[1] In the apple example, above, they will see the clear difference because the surface pattern is different.
Color blindness almost never means complete monochromatism. In almost all cases, color blind people retain blue-yellow discrimination, and most color blind individuals are anomalous trichromats rather than complete dichromats. In practice this means that they often retain a limited discrimination along the red-green axis of color space although their ability to separate colors in this dimension is severely reduced.
It should also be noted that even though some people are unable to see some or maybe even any of the numbers in (e.g. red-green) color blindness test, the person might still be able to tell the difference between the colors in his or her everyday life.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
RHINO CONSERVATION
Rhino Conservation
Rhinos have been driven to near extinction – the world rhino population has fallen by more than 90 percent in the past 30 years. Whereas 30 species of rhino once roamed the planet, only five remain today, and all of them are endangered. In Africa, only the black rhinoceros and white rhinoceros still exist.
The Challenge
What’s the cause of the rhino’s precipitous decline? Not the habitat loss or food supply disruption that affects so many African animals. Rather, it is man’s relentless pursuit of the animal’s unique horn that poses the single most dangerous threat to rhinos today.
Saving the Rhino
AWF has been at the forefront of rhino conservation for decades. In the 1970s, when demand for rhino horn skyrocketed, AWF recognized this alarming development and joined with other organizations to launch conservation measures.
Despite these efforts, rhinos stood at the brink of extinction by the mid-1980s. AWF and other conservationists agreed that the only way to ensure their survival was to secure them in protected areas such as sanctuaries. Today, thanks to these rhino areas and the work of conservationists around the world, African rhinos are recovering from threat of extinction. Though populations remain small, the outlook for rhinos is good. With the support of a host of governments, communities, scientists, and conservation organizations, AWF continues to catalyze efforts to save the rhino.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)