Carrying Capacity

Carrying capacity
I just read an article about the concept of carrying capacity. On it, the author exposes the conception of this concept and its appliances to a diversity of examples in biology and demography, as well as on human ecology. The conception of this idea is traced back to Malthus essay on human population growth. Then it shows the extended influence of this essay in many thinkers of the time (17th century) and since then; and specially, in Darwin’s work and therefore in biology and some of the must accepted scientific theories today. Nonetheless, it also shows the flaws that lay behind this concept and the problems it suppose when applying it to complex biological and social systems. It continues explaining some of the applications that some scientists have proposed on this concept and the limitations it has in different examples. It concludes that the concept is not useful when applying it to complex systems but for a very small time and a limited sample of variables. When trying to set “carrying capacities” to population growth, resource consumption or ecosystems resilience, there would be a number of “upper limits” to consider, and since there could be not an objective value for such limits, it would require institutional consensus or value judgments to set such limits.
Now, this is a very important discussion. When thinking about sustainability, growth, population, and parameters such as life quality, it is impossible to leave out this concept “carrying capacity” or at least, “upper limits” to some parameters. One important example is the upper limit of atmospheric CO2, set at 400 ppm by the IPCC, and the 2 degrees planetary temperature increase. These limits where set based on a series of scientific observations and suppositions that were agreed by an institution composed by a very large number of scientists from many countries around the world.
This is an example of how a consensus could be made to agree on upper limits for specific parameters. Now, there are many issues that cannot be so easily settled. For example, population growth. How could a panel of experts set an upper limit for population growth. Based on which parameters. Would it limit the growth of some ethnicities and others not, would it prioritise diversity, social status, certain capacities over others. The problems that rise from this issue are countless. I believe it is not possible to undertake such a task under the same conditions as the IPCC has made for CO2 concentrations.
I would like to explore the idea of a more local approach. What if the settling of upper limits for population growth would be left to localities or regions, based on the local knowledge on recourse availability and consumption patterns, for example, instead of a top down policy that would impose upper limits based on parameters that could be nonsense in many cases.

2020.01 Nuclear Energy Notes

Japanese nuclear industry highlights 2020.01

① Ikata nuclear power plant (NPP) problems. The security of Reactor No.3 is under serious doubts, after two incidents that under certain circumstances could be the cause of hazardous accidents. The first incident (January 12) was a failure during routine inspections, when taking away the control rods from the nuclear reactor. The second incident (January 25) was a sudden cut of the external primary energy source that feeds the cooling system; fortunately, the emergency system came in on time. This reactor is the only one, of three that the company “Yonden” runs, that received permission to be restarted after the Fukushima disaster.

② Reuse of contaminated (radioactive) earth. The Ministry of Environment is working on a plan (省令案) to use the contaminated earth (除染土) in diverse public works across the country (dike construction, roads, railroads, artificial islands, fill agricultural lands…). As the Certified nonprofit Organization FoeJapan describes, the principle in handling radioactive waste is to concentrate and isolate it, not disperse it. The earth that is object of this plan, is that that has less than 8,000 Bq/kg in the Prefecture of Fukushima. Note that the standard for reuse concrete or iron exposed to radiation (like the materials in a nuclear reactor) is of 108 Bq/kg (Cesuim 134 and 137). And this Organization claims that many things are left open in this plan by MOE, the most worrisome is that it fails to assign responsibilities to the entities (public and privet) that would be supposed to plan, prepare, enforce and actually handle this earth. Plans like this had been proposed at the prefectural level, but inhabitants and local authorities of cities of Fukushima (南相馬, 二本松…) have mobilised to refuse this actions. Also, this plan is not known by the general public (FoeJapan) and no debate has been undertaken to agree what to do with this contaminated earth. Not to mention the risks that the diffusion of radioactive earth could mean to ecosystems, specially when it is washed away by rain, floods and other natural phenomena; besides, some of the radioactive isotopes in this earth, have longer lifetimes than that of the purposes it is supposed to fulfill.

http://www.foejapan.org/energy/fukushima/200131.html
③ Radioactive waste washed away by rivers. As there is no final disposal place set for the radioactive contaminated materials (soil, etc.) there are several provisional places, where this materials are stored in plastic bags. The typhoon number 19 passed over Fukushima and some of these bags were washed away by the near-by river. The Minister of Environment (Koizumi) said that the bags were found intact, and that there had been no damage to the environment. However, there are videos where workers are taking empty bags from the river back to the provisional storage place. The Ministry said that those bags were originally empty, but radiation tests confirmed that there was radiactive materials in those bags.
https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASN1K34NGN17UGTB003.html