Observer

 

After reading rave reviews, I expected to learn things from Observer about quantum mechanics that I didn't already know from my Google study. I am disappointed. The science of this sci-fi novel is superficial and sparse. From beginning to end, I could not suspend disbelief in the major premise, extrapolated from findings that observers always affect the outcome of scientific experiments, that a chip implanted in the brain could allow  a person to create a real "branch of the universe" in a universe of multiple universes in which all possibilities and  deepest desires  are made "real," The implantee visits beloved dead, interacts with them, talks, has sex, murders, etc. Just like in the universe we see.

I also found characters and their relationships superficial, predictable, and unbelievable. The surgeon who does the implanting, Caroline, is the only skeptic of the premise. She argues the experience of the branch universes her patients create is illusion or hallucinations, But she immediately abandons her skepticism and demands to be implanted  when her lover is killed.

Finally for this review, I am disappointed in the role of consciousness in the novel. I must admit, beyond the sum total of thoughts, feelings, and awareness of individual experience, I don't know what consciousness is. In this novel, it is treated as an a priori assumption that consciousness is some kind of vague universal stuff or energy that makes us all one with each other, the universe, and eternity. It reminds me of Sam Harris’s defense of hallucinogenic drugs and sounds more like religion than science.

I know, we shouldn’t expect sci-fi to be restricted to existing science and many of the classical sci-fi writers have been prophetic about things that turn out to be true in science as it evolves. I love Ursula Le Guin and Italo Calvino, but because of the reviews I expected more and better current science from Observer.

All that said, the novel is page-turner-thriller entertainment, and I suppose it should deserve at least 4 stars for that if I weren't so disappointed in my expectations.

Metallic Mineral Mining unsafe Anywhere in Maine

 Kudos to Earth Justice for filing their petition to stop the rezoning effort by Wolfden to mine Pickett Mountain. Supporters of the petition say a metallic mineral mine there could put at risk an “important place not only of ecological significance, but also cultural and historical significance.” The risks cited in the BDN article, “Conservation groups trying to stop mining project at Pickett Mountain,” apply to every place in Maine where a metallic mineral mine has been or could be proposed. Everywhere, acid mine drainage leaking into Maine waters threatens fish habitats and thus the fishing industry, an important economic driver in our state. Everywhere, “Mining threatens the tribes’ cultural connection to the land” in that the tribes as original occupants of Maine have those connections every place.  Everywhere in Maine’s wet climate—growing wetter every year—mining threatens toxic pollution of our waters. Let us hope this petition begins a public reexamination of economic and cultural costs of metallic mineral mining anywhere in Maine.   

Source: https://eedition.bangordailynews.com/olive/odn/bangordailynews/default.aspx?olv-cache-ver=20230313061121)  

Lithium Mining Harms the Environment

“The Greenbushes lithium mine is an open-pit mining operation in Western Australia and is the world's largest hard-rock lithium mine."  https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/greenbushes-lithium-mine-gm1399997488-453704172 

LD 1363, “An Act to Support Extraction of Common Minerals by Amending the Maine Metallic Mineral Mining Act,” ought NOT to pass. This bill would allow open-pit mining of spodumene, the metallic mineral that contains lithium used in batteries to power consumer electronics and electric vehicles.

Inspired in 2012 by proposals to mine for precious metals at Bald Mountain in my home town area, I have been researching risks and benefits of metallic mineral mining for more than a decade. Early on, I asked proposers, “What is an example of metallic mineral mining operation that has not caused serious pollution?” One geologist when confronted with evidence that his example was in fact contaminating surrounding waters said, “Well, it depends on which scientist you believe.”

Through the years since 2012, including through the passage of the 2017 law, questionably said to be “the strictest in the nation” (I haven’t seen evidence for that), I continued to ask and still have not found one example of a mine that has not caused serious pollution. The 2017 law is not strict enough either. It allows contamination of ground water in the “mining area,” unlimited 3-acre open pits, and has other problems harmful to the environment and human health. That law should be strengthened or replaced with a regulatory framework that prevents harm rather than tries to punish it after environmental harm occurs such as one proposed by Ralph Chapman, scientist and 4-term member of the Maine legislature.

With LD 1363, I ask again for an example of a lithium mining operation safe for the environment. Again, I find no satisfactory answers and alarming evidence of environmental destruction from lithium mining. An incident reported by the Institute for Energy Research November 12, 2020, provides a striking image of environmental contamination caused by lithium mining:  In Tibet, “May 2016, dead fish were found in the waters of the Liqi River, where a toxic chemical leaked from the Ganzizhou Rongda Lithium mine. Cow and yak carcasses were also found floating downstream, dead from drinking contaminated water. It was the third incident in seven years due to a sharp increase in mining activity.”   

And at the same site, “In Australia and North America, lithium [. . .] mined from rock [. . .]requires the use of chemicals in order to extract it in a useful form. Research in Nevada found impacts on fish as far as 150 miles downstream from a lithium processing operation.”

Guillermo Gonzalez, a lithium battery expert from the University of Chile, in a 2009 interview says about lithium mining, “Like any mining process, it is invasive, it scars the landscape, it destroys the water table and it pollutes the earth and the local wells[. . . .] This isn’t a green solution – it’s not a solution at all.”  

By providing exemptions in the law for lithium mining, LD 1363 would further weaken the current Metallic Mineral Mining Act and should not pass into law. Instead the legislature and the Board of Environmental Protection should focus on how to prevent known harms to the environment and human health that come with all metallic mineral mining.

Sources:

Full text of the bill  

Testimony:  https://legislature.maine.gov/bills/getTestimonyDoc.asp?id=10016951

Research:  https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

 

 

SAGE Class on Election Issues 2022

Would you like to dive down beneath the surface of political advertising dominating the media and study major crises facing our state and nation this election season?  SAGE (Seniors Achieving Greater Education) is sponsoring Election Issues 2022 focused on major problems confronting voters. We will be discussing and evaluating proposed legislative solutions. Classes begin 10-3 and meet weekly until 10-24 for 2 hours each session. It is a hybrid class available via ZOOM and also in person at UMPI. For the full brochure listing other classes click here. You will find forms and instructions about how to register on the last 4 pages of the brochure. For questions about the class or the instructor, message Moore Bowen on FB. 

Instructor bio: Alice Bolstridge, Ph. D. in English Literature is a retired English instructor and a long-time volunteer activist for solving social problems through the legislature. 

Prospective Schedule

 

On the War in Ukraine

I do not understand the purpose of a Facebook post about U. S. culpability in causing the war in Ukraine. Is it supposed to somehow bring about peace in Ukraine? Or is it to defend the Russian government for waging the war? Or is it just to persuade us that the US government sucks, too, and should back away from defending Ukraine?

 I asked these questions in a comment. One person responded  that the post is meant to look "behind the curtain of propaganda" and to apply "critical thinking skills" to the US involvement. The value of that, she said, should be obvious.

 I still don't get what I'm looking for.. I want to hear  What do we do with what we learn about the war, about the world-wide rise of autocracy and its use of forced or violent oppression, including in US? As a pacifist, I really want to know the answers to these questions. If there are answers.

 It seems this thread is a fight among people with common values for peace and democracy. Could it be that in seeing the problem as dualistic (Ukraine vs Russia or US vs Russia or east vs west or leader vs leader etc.), economic and class systems that cause world conflicts and war mostly get lost? Might it be more useful to focus on the systemic problems and seeking solutions to them? For alternative analysis of the problem and possible solutions, see Richard Woolf "Democracy at Work,." 

Is glyphosate safe to use as directed: Open letter to Governor Janet Mills

Dear Governor Mills,

Is glyphosate safe for the environment and the health of humans and other animals when used as directed? The legislature’s vote in favor of LD 125, the tough aerial spray ban on glyphosate, indicates our legislators have listened to the environmentalists’ science instead of the industry’s.

There is abundant scientific evidence that glyphosate is not safe even when used as directed.  Furthermore, according to theplantway.com,

 the toxicity of Roundup, and indeed other products that use glyphosate, is increased by the surfactants and adjuvants and other compounds added to the mixture.

This makes the product wholly more toxic than the active ingredient alone.

One study tested Roundup and glyphosate independently on human placental cells and found that Roundup was twice as toxic compared to glyphosate.

This tells us that testing isolated glyphosate alone does not give us a complete picture of the impact of herbicides on human health. Indeed, the problem is likely to be far bigger than we realize. (https://www.theplantway.com/glyphosate-safe/)

If the glyphosate industry and all other supporters of its use in Maine are not outright lying, they are in denial.about the hazards.

Either way, you now have the chance to mitigate some of the harm that glyphosate is doing to Maine forests,  soils, water, and health. If you have any doubts about the safety of glyphosate, please read the article @ https://www.theplantway.com/glyphosate-safe/. And then, please sign LD 125 into law.

Respectfully,

Alice Bolstridge, Ph. D.

Ted Talks on Democracy

SAGE course coming in February to the comfort of your own home via ZOOM.

Dates and Time: Tuesdays, February 2, 9, 16, 23, 9:30-11:30.

Description: Using videos and discussion, this course will explore questions about democracy ranging from basic to more complex and thorny issues: What is democracy? Why does it matter? What role does it play in our government? What are the constitutional issues? What are benefits and risks? What are threats to it that pundits keep warning us about? And more as the interests of the class dictate.



Instructor bio:
Alice Bolstridge, Ph. D. is a retired English instructor, writer, and activist for peace and justice.

Registration
 https://msad1.coursestorm.com/course/sage-membership-registration3