The most appropriate way to start off this week's blog is by extending my condolences to the Japanese families who have lost loved ones as a result of this week's earthquake and tsunami. I'd also like to express my hope for a full recovery of Japan in terms of both psychology and economics. Beyond these points, things get a little more complicated.
In case you aren't up to speed, there was a massive earthquake in Japan last Friday that measured a massive 8.9 on the Richter scale. It led to wreckage and huge tsunamis whose effects could be felt across the Pacific. Luckily, Japan's infrastructure is among the best in the world of its terms ability withstand earthquakes and tsunamis. Unfortunately, not every death was preventable, and around 10,000 dead are expected to be found, even as rescue attempts continue. That's the more human side of the disaster. Things get even more complicated from there.
As a result of the earthquake, Japan's economy has suffered a set back. Of greater immediate concern is the potential for the meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Fukushima. The earthquake prevented the plant from functioning, but the funny thing about nuclear power is even after you've stopped generating electricity with it you still need electricity to keep the fuel rods cool or they'll start exploding. They have. Although voices of reason point out that the language of disaster surrounding the potential catastrophe is a bit over-the-top, as comparisons to Chernobyl or the risk of a meltdown are overblown, there is a chance radiation will contaminate the plant's surroundings, and generate backlash to nuclear energy on whole.
Of course when people here about a tragedy of this proportion they want to help out. The US began relief efforts, taking advantage of its military presence in Japan, immediately. Private donations have also started flowing in. Here's a list of good options if you're interested in donating. And here's an article you to not spend your money foolishly.
One of the most interesting things when a disaster like this strikes is how it's covered in the media. And even if it seems a little soon to be analyzing coverage of this disaster, it's worth delving in to. Personally, I have found most interesting the tension between the way the media covers disasters in third world countries like Haiti or Indonesia as opposed to coverage of a disaster in first world Japan. In the same news report, reporters will praise Japan's excellent, state-of-the-art technology it invests in to effectively minimize the impact of earthquakes and tsunamis, and in the next breath use alarming rhetoric, calling the event a catastrophe or warning of a nuclear meltdown. This seems a bit silly and overblown. If any country in the world is prepared for a natural disaster, it is probably Japan. The country is natural resource-poor, inherently vulnerable, and culturally conservative in terms of risk taking. Even if reporters think sympathetic disaster coverage will sell or generate needed goodwill, it seems like a bit of a lie to make this story fit the traditional disaster mold. This doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to the Japanese who lost their lives, but it seems like we squander a potential learning opportunity when even successful disaster response is spun as being part of a catastrophe. A blog I stumbled across spoke about the limitations of language in the face of this tragedy. While it certainly is difficult to put language to work to express the scope of human suffering, perhaps we should instead employ language to speak about the lessons we can learn from Japan's response to a natural disaster, instead of repeating the obvious. 10,000 isn't 400,000 and the reason for that isn't dumb luck.
Update: Two days later Paul Pillar of the National Interest has made a similar point.
No comments:
Post a Comment