"Wars May End but Policing Never Does"

That is, unless there is no money to fund police work.  The world is alive with the buzz of tainted breathalizers.  A year ago, DC realized their breathalizer system was innaccurate and the readings were tainted.  Since this time, drunk driving arrests have decreased by nearly 40%.

Is it because there have been less people drinking and driving?

Surely, no.

Is it because police work has been able to prevent people from getting behind the wheel?

Again, most likely not.

Without breathalizers, police officers can only arrest people who absolutely fail a field sobriety test, and if they do, they are brought to the station for an expensive urine sample (7 times the cost per breathalizer).  $75 pee tests have diverted officers from arresting suspected drunks. 

The radio commented that it is a good bitter thing to have happen.  On one hand: less likely to be arrested, on the other, more likely to end up in a dui related accident.  The radio also made it seem like now is the time to go drinking and driving- however smart that may sound to you, DC will get their act together sooner rather than later, (hopefully they will get funding soon), and just think how screwed up your saturdays to come will be if you end up with a dui, or worse, hurting someone from getting behind the wheel.  And that pretty face of yours in an accident.

This is one example of many that the police have had to deal with in regards to budget cuts, or the inability to recover from mistakes.  The worst that I have found is the meth lab example.  Meth lab cleanups tend to fall within the FBI jurisdiction.  Federal funds are used to help states bear the burden of cleaning up labs, and as of February- the money well was dry.  What this means:

• Labs are being found but not being cleaned.
• Police are forced to kick residents out of nearby buildings until the lab can be cleaned (or else it is a liability).
• The money ran out in February, and now that it is April, the budget has not been passed yet that allows funds to resume the cleanup process.

Crystal meth for everyone? The influx of labs to be cleaned up has grown everyday.  So in the mean time, I would advise you to mind the police tape, or urge congress to pass this budget agreement.  In fact, the second idea will solve many police issues.  Only 6 more months til we have to pass another budget- budget by then? I'm optomistic. 

A Nuclear Wasteland?

With the recent disaster in Japan, I have found many people and agencies calling into question the need for nuclear resources, and do the benefits outweigh the risks.  Here, we have an American viewpoint with everything going on in Japan: with many agencies arguing the risk is isolated over in Japan, and should not affect our view of nuclear energy.  Today, I would like to present an international perspective of what has been considered and where nuclear research is likely to go. 

Nuclear Life before Fukishima
Before this disaster, the US was spending an enormous amount of time, energy, and a multitude of resources to prevent other countries from developing nuclear weapons.  Here are some facts:

• There are 8 declared nuclear weapon states
• There is 1 state that is undeclared, but is considered a nuclear weapon state (Israel)
• Four of those states are not governed by the nuclear proliferation treaty (which technically they can choose to use nuclear weapons against other states without provocation, although, they would be persecuted in international courts).
• Though only 9 technically possess nuclear weapons, there is a nuclear weapon sharing program that gives 7 other countries access to US nuclear weapons.
• Nuclear Plant Accidents:
• 19
• Radiation Leaks
• 20
• There are only 189 signatories on the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which means other countries can develop nuclear weapons if they choose. 
• Furthermore, a state can CHOOSE to leave the treaty if they would like to develop nuclear weapons.
• 2010 saw Russia and the US coming together and deciding to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapon, as well as promote a policy of full transparency (a method to reassure other states that we won't like about what we possess, and to encourage honesty and trust with other states). 
• Despite the agreement that was made, there has been little to no progress to reduce stockpiles.  The economic recovery has pushed nuclear controls to the backseat, and it is an international concern. The control of nuclear energy has been pushed to the forefront with the recent disaster in Japan. 

Iraq? Iran? Weapons of Mass destruction? despite the energy that goes into the creation, destruction, and prevention of nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, regardless of the form, has serious repercussions. 

I would argue that the largest concern is the safety of the weapons and the safety of the facilities.  There are weapons lost, some are potentially on the black market (mysterious disappearance of Russian suitcase nuclear weapons), and in the wrong hands, could destroy everything.  The lack of control, despite having the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, and the many more agencies: there are not international standards that every state adheres too, and there likely won't be.  Besides, who has the right to tell other states what they can do with their nuclear energy, and who would head the agency that would decide? No, the US is not allowed to do that.  Nor is any other country.  Without a standard, and the lack of control, we have to ask if the contents of pandora's box will ever been controlled. 

So, what is the point?

Nuclear energy has done many great things for mankind:

• X-Rays- Awesome invention, and without which, more than a few of us would be disfigured with our broken bones.
• It's a clean way to produce energy: there are no poisonous biproducts of the energy (such as CO2)
• Nuclear waste takes up less room than waste from fossil fuel.  It's an alternate to fossil fuel too (which our demand can not keep up with supply).
• Fossil fuel industries have had MANY more accidents than nuclear production accidents.  The trouble is that fossil fuel accidents do not have as large an impact on the environment as nuclear accidents do.
• There is virtually an infinite supply of nuclear energy.  Nuclear power is developed from Uranium, which currently is largely found within the earth's crust. 
• Nuclear energy isn't subject to the market like oil is. 
• Surprisingly, radiation has been around since the existence of the earth, and in some ways it is beneficial to human help in moderate amounts. 

But, this should not distract that nuclear energy is dangerous, and it is important to be educated and have a world-wide perspective for what is going on.  We should look at the whole: Nuclear Power Programs, not just nuclear weapon programs.. 

Japan and the Aftermath:
Today, the disaster at the plant in Fukushimu has been upgraded to be a comparable disaster to Chernobyl.  To be frank, that disaster did not end well and I don't suspect that this will either.  The control of the disaster has been marred by the continued earth quakes, with some speculation that the quakes will continue for twenty years to come. 

Aside from how smart it is to have a nuclear power plant on the Pacific Ring of Fire,  the international impact will be significant.  Some of the current repercussions include:

• Countries are already detecting higher than normal levels of radiation (including the U.S.) which due to wind and other forms of weather, has helped to spread radiation.
• Radiation from the plant leaked into the ocean.  Though this has claimed to be stopped, we are yet to know the effects.
• Milk and food has been contaminated in Japan, though the primary concern is infants.  This has countries testing and retesting imports and exports from Japan to ensure it is safe for consummation
• In the midst of these awesome economic times, exports from Japan have slowed due to what has been going on, so what about countries that rely upon importing Japanese products? Specifically in the Asian region, the concern for the safety of the citizens is greater, but it would be remiss to say that countries are having to adjust to what has been going on in Japan.

Surely, there are more international repercussions, and many more that are likely to be realized in the future.  With 25 years beyond Chernobyl, it is challenging to say that we were more prepared for this situation.  In many ways, the two situations are so different, they are hardly comparable.  The chernobyl disaster leaked 400 times more radiation than the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.  With the recent catagorization of Japan's nuclear disaster, the potential for the same effects is humbling.  The chernobyl disaster has claimed as many as 900,000 human lives (depending on the reports you read), sadly, Japan will hopefully recieve the international aid they need to prevent the same outcome.  And yet, it is far too soon to tell.

Where do we go from here:
It would be fair to say that the invention of nuclear energy has done more harm than good, and frankly no one knows better than Japan.  However, does it make a difference? These disasters cause hesitation.  I would like to believe the world will be on recovery for some time due to the economic conditions, the events in Haiti and Japan, and potential other crisees to come.  Research will continue, and when the dust (or radiation) has settled, it will more than likely be back to business.  There are the people that consider nuclear energy a power, and the effects of Japan will only encourage those countries to obtain the power and potentially convert it to nuclear weapons.  With countries possessing nuclear weapons that are not subject to international conditions and constraints (like the NPT), there will be a need for a watch dog figure to have nuclear weapons, on the off chance the "enemy" gets it too.  Furthermore, weapons have been found on the black market.  Untill all weapons are accounted for, it is not logical for governments to destroy their weapons, but it is logical to reduce their stockpile.  I predict that though Japan has put pressure on the US to maintain nuclear weapons in case Japan is attacked (as well as other countries under the US Nuclear Umbrella), they will move away from nuclear power as a form of weapon, and will join the platform for a nuclear weapon free world. 

Then again, we have created so many weapons at this point, it is impossible to destroy the information.  At some point the battle will not be between states that have the nuclear weapons, but organizations.  That would be the scariest reality to come.


Thoughts?