I finished Lost Discoveries, an interesting read. I think Teresi lacks a suitable definition of science, but the book is fun in establishing what non-European cultures contributed to our understanding of the world (like the number zero). After finishing it, I started The Fellowship of the Ring, which I had wanted to read in camp, but I cannot really complain about reading it in New Zealand (I might have to buy one of the travel guidebooks that catalog all of the sites in the movies).
I also started Walden for my lunch time reading. I have not read Walden, but Jason and Alecia gave me a Walden t-shirt (http://www.outofprintclothing.com/) for Christmas, which prompted Sarah and I to decide to read it. I do not know if it is going to be exactly my type of book, but it is a classic, and there is no better place to read classics than at work, where TV, runs and blogging are not as easily at hand.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Ayurveda
I went to an Ayurveda workshop at Living Yoga last weekend. I spent the money mostly to have an excuse to socialize. I was not all that interested in the subject, and am amazed at the belief people put into such obvious nonsense (bloodletting is a detoxification method for the Pitta dosa). It did, however, work to help me socialize.
Ayurveda was introduced by the instructor as the "science of life." Science, in this use, would relate to the study of something, not necessarily to scientific study. That is, science in the -logy sense, where geology is the science of Earth systems, cosmology is the science of the universe, and theology is the science of religion. Obviously, science is not the best translation of the Greek root. It should be, rather, the study of the Earth, universe or religion, in the previous examples. The translation from Sanskrit for Ayurveda would probably be better not as the study of life, but as the knowledge of life. The Wikipedia translation defines it as "the complete knowledge for long life." (The Wikipedia page seems like (I have not read it) a good summary of Ayurveda, and can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda, as a discussion of what Ayurveda is functionally, is out of the scope of this post.) Even if the ancient Indians called Ayurveda science, it would not be science today. Unfortunately, most people lack the understanding of the difference between that which is science, and that which is not to appreciate the difference.
People have a difficult time defining science, and there is not, to my knowledge, a definitive definition of satisfactory quality published by a respectable body, for example, the National Academies of Science. In this vacuum of fact there is an overabundance of opinion to which, I add my own. Science is a method to study a system strictly using the scientific method. The scientific method is observation, question, hypothesis, test, observation. A "scientist," who observes glaciers, but does little hypothesizing is a naturalist. It is a noble pursuit to be a naturalist, and in fact, science would be better if those incapable of original thought stuck with naturalism, rather than "inventing" social significance, hypotheses and such to validate their research as science, but I digress. For this rant, I will use my definition of science, and I encourage people to think about those things that claim to be science (naturalism, engineering, creationism, etc.) in this light, and see if the world makes more sense. I would be grateful for any comments about how to improve my definition without adding complication.
Pursuits that are not science are not bothered with all the steps of the scientific method. In the geosciences, it is common to see naturalists skip the hypothesis and test steps (observation, question, observation). In every "pseudo-science" it is the test step that is wont to be skipped. In Creationism, the method is something like answer, question, observation, answer (a dogma cannot really be a hypothesis because one believes it). In Ayurveda, the method is observation, question, hypothesis, observation. It is notable to point out that in all of these examples scholarly people are pursuing explanations for the world, the question here is one of rhetoric (defining science), and belief.
Belief is a plague in society. Belief has its place. Religion is nothing without belief, but love, trust and happiness are probably nothing without belief too. The problem is that people believe (or not) in nearly everything. Common beliefs in society are about trivial things ("I believe the meeting is at 09:00"), the functionality of a treatment ("I do not believe in chiropractic care" or "I believe in Ayurveda") or any number of similar ideas where thought, not belief, belongs. Does the co-worker believe the meeting is at a given time, or do they think the meeting is at 09:00 based on their memory of a memo? Does the person actually not believe in chiropractic care, or do they not think that it is not a useful treatment? Should the person believe in Ayurveda? Of course not! Here is the test for the use of believe; can you replace what you believe in (or do not believe in) with a common object? If you can, then you should think not believe. Here are some examples.
"I believe the meeting is at 09:00."
Replace the meeting time with something else, say telephones. You now have the statement, "I believe in telephones." There is plenty of evidence for the existence of telephones, and there is also plenty of evidence for the meeting times. There are also ways to test both the existence of telephones, and the time of the meeting. Therefore, telephones is an appropriate substitution for the meeting time. Thus, the statement should be, "I think the meeting is at 09:00."
"I do not believe in chiropractic care."
Replace chiropractic care with red cars to get, "I do not believe in red cars." Can you test for the existence of red cars? Yes. Can you test for the existence of chiropractic care? Yes. Can you test the effectiveness of chiropractic care? Again yes. Red cars can substitute for chiropractic care in this statement. Thus, the well spoken, rational person says, "I do not think chiropractic care is useful." (Personally, I think chiropractic care is an effective treatment for certain ailments, as a note.)
"I believe in God."
Replace God with dogs. Is there a test for the existence of dogs? Yes. Is there a test for the existence of God? No. Thus, dogs cannot substitute for God in this statement. It follows that one can believe in God, or have faith in God, or what have you. This is not to say that you cannot think that God does or does not exist, it is simply to say that one can believe in God without being a complete idiot for doing so (e.g. the guy who does not believe in red cars is a complete idiot). In the case of deities, belief just indicates that you are out of the discussion. I, for example, do not think that God (or any other omnipotent being) exists. I would find it most enjoyable to have a discussion about this with someone who thinks such a being exists. I do not (generally) mind hearing the thoughts of those who believe/do not believe in God, but I gain little from this because I will be swayed by thought, not feelings, opinions or ancient texts.
Back to Ayurveda and science. The beauty of all these methods of describing the world is that the observation step is common to everything! Creationists observe a beautiful, complex world, and seek explanations. Naturalists observe a beautiful, complex world and seek to record and categorize it. Ayurvedics observe a beautiful and complex world, and seek a path through it. Scientists observe a beautiful and complex world, and seek understanding. To focus on Ayurveda, Vatta people are generally thin, active and cold. To be comfortable in life, they should give themselves warmth and eat regularly. Maybe this is because they are Vatta, or it could be that there is a physiologic reason for this. Either way, the observation that thin, active people are generally cold, and need to eat small meals regularly holds solid.
As for my Ayurvedic experience, I am tri-dosic, meaning that I am Pitta, Vatta and Kapha in nearly equal proportions. Finding balance in my life is difficult owing to this. I suppose I might be all three dosas, or it could be that it is difficult to develop a system that answers all of the questions of the human body based on three types of people who are controlled by the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and ether), and thus some people fit multiple dosas.
I gained several things from the workshop. Most important, were invitations to two dinner parties. Of lesser importance, was the knowledge of my own dosas. As for Ayurveda, six hours of sitting on the floor gave me an increased appreciation of the observations that people of all belief systems can contribute to the combined knowledge of humans. This dovetailed nicely with finishing the book Lost Discoveries as the author of that book attributes scientific discovery to ancient peoples. After the workshop, I think the discoveries of most ancient peoples are made through insight, not science
Ayurveda was introduced by the instructor as the "science of life." Science, in this use, would relate to the study of something, not necessarily to scientific study. That is, science in the -logy sense, where geology is the science of Earth systems, cosmology is the science of the universe, and theology is the science of religion. Obviously, science is not the best translation of the Greek root. It should be, rather, the study of the Earth, universe or religion, in the previous examples. The translation from Sanskrit for Ayurveda would probably be better not as the study of life, but as the knowledge of life. The Wikipedia translation defines it as "the complete knowledge for long life." (The Wikipedia page seems like (I have not read it) a good summary of Ayurveda, and can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda, as a discussion of what Ayurveda is functionally, is out of the scope of this post.) Even if the ancient Indians called Ayurveda science, it would not be science today. Unfortunately, most people lack the understanding of the difference between that which is science, and that which is not to appreciate the difference.
People have a difficult time defining science, and there is not, to my knowledge, a definitive definition of satisfactory quality published by a respectable body, for example, the National Academies of Science. In this vacuum of fact there is an overabundance of opinion to which, I add my own. Science is a method to study a system strictly using the scientific method. The scientific method is observation, question, hypothesis, test, observation. A "scientist," who observes glaciers, but does little hypothesizing is a naturalist. It is a noble pursuit to be a naturalist, and in fact, science would be better if those incapable of original thought stuck with naturalism, rather than "inventing" social significance, hypotheses and such to validate their research as science, but I digress. For this rant, I will use my definition of science, and I encourage people to think about those things that claim to be science (naturalism, engineering, creationism, etc.) in this light, and see if the world makes more sense. I would be grateful for any comments about how to improve my definition without adding complication.
Pursuits that are not science are not bothered with all the steps of the scientific method. In the geosciences, it is common to see naturalists skip the hypothesis and test steps (observation, question, observation). In every "pseudo-science" it is the test step that is wont to be skipped. In Creationism, the method is something like answer, question, observation, answer (a dogma cannot really be a hypothesis because one believes it). In Ayurveda, the method is observation, question, hypothesis, observation. It is notable to point out that in all of these examples scholarly people are pursuing explanations for the world, the question here is one of rhetoric (defining science), and belief.
Belief is a plague in society. Belief has its place. Religion is nothing without belief, but love, trust and happiness are probably nothing without belief too. The problem is that people believe (or not) in nearly everything. Common beliefs in society are about trivial things ("I believe the meeting is at 09:00"), the functionality of a treatment ("I do not believe in chiropractic care" or "I believe in Ayurveda") or any number of similar ideas where thought, not belief, belongs. Does the co-worker believe the meeting is at a given time, or do they think the meeting is at 09:00 based on their memory of a memo? Does the person actually not believe in chiropractic care, or do they not think that it is not a useful treatment? Should the person believe in Ayurveda? Of course not! Here is the test for the use of believe; can you replace what you believe in (or do not believe in) with a common object? If you can, then you should think not believe. Here are some examples.
"I believe the meeting is at 09:00."
Replace the meeting time with something else, say telephones. You now have the statement, "I believe in telephones." There is plenty of evidence for the existence of telephones, and there is also plenty of evidence for the meeting times. There are also ways to test both the existence of telephones, and the time of the meeting. Therefore, telephones is an appropriate substitution for the meeting time. Thus, the statement should be, "I think the meeting is at 09:00."
"I do not believe in chiropractic care."
Replace chiropractic care with red cars to get, "I do not believe in red cars." Can you test for the existence of red cars? Yes. Can you test for the existence of chiropractic care? Yes. Can you test the effectiveness of chiropractic care? Again yes. Red cars can substitute for chiropractic care in this statement. Thus, the well spoken, rational person says, "I do not think chiropractic care is useful." (Personally, I think chiropractic care is an effective treatment for certain ailments, as a note.)
"I believe in God."
Replace God with dogs. Is there a test for the existence of dogs? Yes. Is there a test for the existence of God? No. Thus, dogs cannot substitute for God in this statement. It follows that one can believe in God, or have faith in God, or what have you. This is not to say that you cannot think that God does or does not exist, it is simply to say that one can believe in God without being a complete idiot for doing so (e.g. the guy who does not believe in red cars is a complete idiot). In the case of deities, belief just indicates that you are out of the discussion. I, for example, do not think that God (or any other omnipotent being) exists. I would find it most enjoyable to have a discussion about this with someone who thinks such a being exists. I do not (generally) mind hearing the thoughts of those who believe/do not believe in God, but I gain little from this because I will be swayed by thought, not feelings, opinions or ancient texts.
Back to Ayurveda and science. The beauty of all these methods of describing the world is that the observation step is common to everything! Creationists observe a beautiful, complex world, and seek explanations. Naturalists observe a beautiful, complex world and seek to record and categorize it. Ayurvedics observe a beautiful and complex world, and seek a path through it. Scientists observe a beautiful and complex world, and seek understanding. To focus on Ayurveda, Vatta people are generally thin, active and cold. To be comfortable in life, they should give themselves warmth and eat regularly. Maybe this is because they are Vatta, or it could be that there is a physiologic reason for this. Either way, the observation that thin, active people are generally cold, and need to eat small meals regularly holds solid.
As for my Ayurvedic experience, I am tri-dosic, meaning that I am Pitta, Vatta and Kapha in nearly equal proportions. Finding balance in my life is difficult owing to this. I suppose I might be all three dosas, or it could be that it is difficult to develop a system that answers all of the questions of the human body based on three types of people who are controlled by the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and ether), and thus some people fit multiple dosas.
I gained several things from the workshop. Most important, were invitations to two dinner parties. Of lesser importance, was the knowledge of my own dosas. As for Ayurveda, six hours of sitting on the floor gave me an increased appreciation of the observations that people of all belief systems can contribute to the combined knowledge of humans. This dovetailed nicely with finishing the book Lost Discoveries as the author of that book attributes scientific discovery to ancient peoples. After the workshop, I think the discoveries of most ancient peoples are made through insight, not science
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Final Straw, and Moving Out
*Note* The following post was written in Honolulu on the 24th. After writing this post, I have made it into Taupo without incident, and have been running errands, and doing just a bit of socializing. On the docket this morning is foraging for food, then cell phone, then some time for exploring my new surroundings.
I am sitting in the Honolulu airport, it is hot, muggy and crowded, and the internet is not free. Thus, this may not be posted until Auckland. It all depends on how cheap and bored I feel (ah, the scales of frugality vs. boredom).
I left Chicken early. The story is interesting, but I do not know if changing names is enough for me to feel comfortable posting it publicly. The skinny of it is that after a summer of my complacency putting myself at greater and greater risk in the field, I had a false sense of security working with a partner. The second day after I had a bear encounter (previous post), working in the same area, there was another bear encounter. It was between one of the employees who was working alone and a bear, and he took a shot at it. I will never know what actually happened. A radio call came through, then a shot rang out a moment later. What little procedures we had were not followed, were not sufficient and people clearly had insufficient training to be working in bear country (“we were trying to be quiet so the bears wouldn't hear us”). After the shot was fired, my field partner spotted a bear running straight at us at high speed. The bear ran at us for 20-30 seconds before being deterred by our noise making. It is not clear if the bear that was shot at was hit, but it was definitely not killed in a responsible manner if it was hit.
In the aftermath of this incident it was clear that the other employees and the company were not interested in working safely, following industry standards for field work, or taking the appropriate actions. Further, the fieldwork was set to continue in the same area the next day. One other employee and I declined to continue working under such conditions, and left for home, rather than for the field the next morning. Allowing me to spend a week and a half in Delta.
The extra time in Delta allowed me to say good bye to the Delta “family,” and my parents, made making final arrangements a bit easier, afforded me some great runs, a hike and bike rides with my parents, and easy to neglect Faux Social. I am at what can best be described as halfway, here in Honolulu, and it still seems, not unreal, but unfathomable, I suppose. I have never had a contract this long, I have never moved to a place I knew no one, and I have not ever sat in an airport this hot typing about what I have never done before.
I posit that the surreal feeling about this is that I am so accustomed to the “temporary” attitude towards everything, that even a long period, like two years, has been temporary for me for the last six years or so. It seems like I have always been preparing to leave, and this last year has been defined by preparing to leave wherever I just arrived. I think this has made me feel stuck in between moving somewhere, and heading off to another temporary life, with temporary people in temporary accommodations. Hopefully I will be able to snap out of this, and settle into a life that looks like what I want my life to be.
It is time to stretch, refill water, and figure out what time it is.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Bears
Yesterday, I had my second bear encounter of the summer. The first encounter was at the last property I was working. In that encounter, the bear was spotted approximately 1/4 mile away. It then walked up hill directly at my field partner and I until it was 50 feet away. At that point, the helicopter picked us up. My field partner fired one warning shot, which did nothing to dissuade the bear. The second bear encounter was one of the more stressful hours of my life.
Bear encounters are highly stressful events. However, statistically speaking, bears are not that great of a risk. At the last property, someone pointed out that a bear attack might be a one in a million event for the average person, but geologists working in bear country are not really average. Thus, I propose a new statistical analysis. I will assume that everywhere in Alaska represents "bear country." Thus, in the last ten years (according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America) there have been 5 people killed by bears in Alaska, or about 0.5 per year. According to the State of Alaska (http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph/bvs/death_statistics/Leading_Causes_Census/frame.html), bear attacks, at 0.5/year are not in the top ten causes of death. Malignant neoplasms are number one, number two are diseases of the heart, yet the food served in mining camps is not generally heart friendly. Unintentional injuries come in at number three (with 339 deaths per year, if you deduct bears, 338.5 people are killed by other unintentional injuries in Alaska per year). Intentional self-harm (suicide) is number six, with 140 deaths in Alaska per yer. This means, that a randomly selected person in Alaska is 280 times more likely to kill themselves, than to be killed by a bear. Given this, should people carry firearms to prevent bear attacks?
From an easy, back of the envelope statistical analysis, it is very evident that bears are not the biggest risk. However, bears are scary. It, for some reason, is not scary to ride in a truck on a gravel road to the field. It is not scary to ride a quad for half an hour into the field. It is not scary to walk over uneven ground. Nor is it scary to ride in a helicopter. However, when you are confronted with a bear, it is scary. From this fear, people start making decisions based on emotion, rather than logic. This is an undesirable situation that can only be dealt with through discussion, and training.
I have been through several bear trainings. Some have been funny to me ("While there is no proof bears are attracted to menstruation, menstruating women should wear tampons rather than pads while in bear country"), and others have been quite good. It is generally agreed upon that bears have vision approximately equal to our own with excellent senses of smelling and hearing. If a bear can only see you when you see it, that does not help keep bears away. Since scent is controlled by wind direction, which is unpredictable sound becomes the best warning tool. All training advises you to take advantage of this. They say that to warn an animal with an excellent sense of hearing it is advisable to make lots of noise.
I usually sing to make noise. My go to song is Greg Brown's "If I Had Known," but I have a few other partial songs in my catalog. "If I Had Known" is 3:25 with music. I can pause for a bit between stanzas, but the goal is to make noise, not be artistic. Thus, I rip through that song in about 2:20, I might stretch it to 3 minutes, but either way, I have to sing that song a lot to make it through a full day in the field. So, sometimes I take a break from singing.
When I am not singing, I am not really a geo-ninja. When in the thick of black spruce, moss, willows, tundra, tussocks and alders, I break branches pushing through them, I rustle trees trying to move them out of the way, I hit my shins and fall resulting in me turning the air blue, and if I get really angry with something I break the branches or what have you with my shovel. This, apparently, is not enough noise to warn a creature with excellent hearing of my imminent arrival. Bears, apparently, hear me rolling in on them like a gaggle of drunken sailors on shore leave in a fine china factory, and think to themselves, "what is that noise? It must be a sparrow." Given this line of reasoning, that seems to be common to all bears that will attack you, does singing actually help? Would carting out a rock band help? I am skeptical that if these creatures cannot associate my slow, steady progress through the brush with stick breaking and expletive eruptions as a human coming towards them, that folk music will make them turn and run.
What seems to work with bears is not noise (I am not suggesting that travel should be done with stealth, but rather the noise working in the brush combined with the normal amount of talking and singing should be sufficient), but working in pairs. The buddy system does not eliminate the bear threat, but rather mitigates the risk in the most effective manner. That is why one should never be working hundreds of meters away from anyone else, in an area of high bear sign, swimming through alders, singing, swearing and releasing frustration through fits of blind rage on dead trees.
This brings me to my second bear encounter of the summer. I was hundreds of meters away from anyone else, in an area of high bear sign, having just passed through a bear latrine with fresh scat, swimming through alders, singing, swearing and releasing frustration through fits of blind rage on dead trees.
I exited the alders into a burned area (from a forest fire). I was relieved to be out of the alders, but looking straight into another thick zone of alders between me and my first sample points. I took out my HTC (absolute rubbish for field work) to assess whether I should move farther off my line to avoid the alders, or continue through the alders when I heard a branch break behind me. I turned around to see a bear's ass leap back into the alders at the precise point I exited the brush twenty feet before. I drew my bear spray, easily removed the safety I improvised when my was torn off in alders (a concern of the pistoleros), and called to the team that I had just spooked a bear and it was headed southeast towards Olmos and Stewart. Fillion, who was attacked by a bear a year ago, quickly realized that he was between Olmos and Stewart, he thought through this, and realized that if a bear is headed towards Olmos and Stewart, it is actually headed directly for him! Shatner began to orchestrate a response on the radio, and the chatter began. At this point I realized that the bear had not moved southeast towards the other three crew members, but was glowering at me from the bushes, and all I can see are two eyes and a snout.
They teach you how to recognize bear moods to predict their actions in bear training, and they teach you what to do when you are interacting with a bear. A bear with perky ears and its head up is curious, much like a dog. A bear with its ears back and head down is angry or aggressive. I could not see the bears ears, but its nose was very near the ground, so I leaned towards angry/aggressive, and called on the radio that the bear was not moving, but staring at me. Shatner wanted to know who was closest to me to offer aid. Stewart then radioed to ask what point I was nearest to. In order to answer that question, I had to look at my HTC.
In bear training, they also teach you how to interact with a bear. The best method seems to speak calmly, "hey bear, whoa bear," with your hands above your head to "look big." I had one hand on my pepper spray, taking an aggressive stance, ready to hose the bear down. My other hand was at my radio to key the mic when I had to need to give updates. The only logical thing to do to look big, was to raise my elbows. I was then standing with elbows up, one hand in front, ready to spray, one hand on my radio, and I had to let go of my radio to get my HTC. HTC3, as mine is designated, is slow to connect to the satellites to get GPS points, and is prone to not reliably updating my location on the screen. I turn on the HTC, unlock the screen and wait for the screen to update, with elbows raised, a constant stream of "hey bear, whoa bear" coming out of my mouth. I radioed my location, and the radio chatter began again. I was also thinking the whole time that one should back away slowly from a bear. These burned areas resemble logging slash, and I was quite convinced that backing away would result in me falling backwards, thus, I decided to stand my ground, elbows held high, thumb on the trigger.
Shatner, in an attempt to figure out where Stewart was, had Stewart fire a shot into the air. I heard this request, and realized that Stewart is on the other side of the bear. I braced for the possibility that the shot would frighten the bear into me. Bang, the shot was fired, and it became clear that Stewart, Olmos and Fillion were a long way off. Shatner had obtained visual on me by this point, and was 300 meters away. The bear eventually disappeared out of view, and Shatner gave watch as I moved away from the point of first contact.
When I got approximately twenty meters away from the point of first contact, and Shatner radioed that a small bear emerged from the brush and was moving behind me. I turned around, pepper spray still ready, and could not see anything despite being in the relative clear of the burned area. Eventually I saw a yearling cub bound by, and I continued moving away. The next call I got on the radio was that the cub was changing direction, then coming parallel to me, then overtaking me. This forced me to head more directly towards Shatner. As I began to cross between the cub and the point of first contact, Shatner radioed that he saw a larger bear emerging from the brush at the point of first contact, it was bigger than the cub, and was following my trail.
Shatner continued to navigate me away from the bears, but it required me to move into a thicker area that was difficult to walk through, where I had no visibility. Trusting his guidance, I proceeded. Olmos, Fillion and Stewart were within sight of each other, listening to the radio and organizing themselves when the bad news came.
"brian, I know it is thick in there, but you need to hurry up," then a pause on the radio. I kept walking, singing Greg Brown, and try to think how I was going to walk faster, through brush and fallen trees, with a can of bear spray that did not have a safety tab. I figured if I fell, Shatner would see a puff of orange spray, and could do something to help me. I resolved to speed up, and then call came through, mere seconds after the hurry up call, "I am going to fire a couple of warning shots."
While I do not recall making this transmission, reports are unanimous, I responded, "Okay. I am not happy," in a stern, grumpy, monotone. While I do not recall reporting my unhappiness, I do recall thinking that while I did not know what Shatner could see, I probably did not want to. I motored, as best I could, bear spray sans safety, stumbling through brush and fallen trees.
Eventually I got to Shatner, and then we walked to a nearby cabin. Fillion and Stewart met up with Olmos in view, and we waited for thirty minutes, without the bears following. Fillion, Stewart and Olmos sampled the top of the lines, away from the bears. Shatner and I walked over to points east of the bears, and sampled.
The day was significantly stressful, and after working the adrenaline out of my system, I started to think about what led to the situation. Working this summer, I have been making small compromises on my personal work safety standards in order to get the job done. There were issues at the last project I was working, there were issues with the truck driving here, and there have been issues working here. After yesterday, I requested that I not work without a partner again. Thus, I have made progress back towards safety. Other crew members have made safer choices, and fixed some of the problems that existed here as well. Meaning others are making progress back towards safety as well. As stressful as the day was, and as bad as the day could have gone, it is the occasional serious incident that reminds us the reasons that we have safety standards that are always followed.
Note: I am not working with a crew of actors who have played spaceship captains, but changed names to protect the identity of people and entities that were portrayed in this post.
Bear encounters are highly stressful events. However, statistically speaking, bears are not that great of a risk. At the last property, someone pointed out that a bear attack might be a one in a million event for the average person, but geologists working in bear country are not really average. Thus, I propose a new statistical analysis. I will assume that everywhere in Alaska represents "bear country." Thus, in the last ten years (according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America) there have been 5 people killed by bears in Alaska, or about 0.5 per year. According to the State of Alaska (http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph/bvs/death_statistics/Leading_Causes_Census/frame.html), bear attacks, at 0.5/year are not in the top ten causes of death. Malignant neoplasms are number one, number two are diseases of the heart, yet the food served in mining camps is not generally heart friendly. Unintentional injuries come in at number three (with 339 deaths per year, if you deduct bears, 338.5 people are killed by other unintentional injuries in Alaska per year). Intentional self-harm (suicide) is number six, with 140 deaths in Alaska per yer. This means, that a randomly selected person in Alaska is 280 times more likely to kill themselves, than to be killed by a bear. Given this, should people carry firearms to prevent bear attacks?
From an easy, back of the envelope statistical analysis, it is very evident that bears are not the biggest risk. However, bears are scary. It, for some reason, is not scary to ride in a truck on a gravel road to the field. It is not scary to ride a quad for half an hour into the field. It is not scary to walk over uneven ground. Nor is it scary to ride in a helicopter. However, when you are confronted with a bear, it is scary. From this fear, people start making decisions based on emotion, rather than logic. This is an undesirable situation that can only be dealt with through discussion, and training.
I have been through several bear trainings. Some have been funny to me ("While there is no proof bears are attracted to menstruation, menstruating women should wear tampons rather than pads while in bear country"), and others have been quite good. It is generally agreed upon that bears have vision approximately equal to our own with excellent senses of smelling and hearing. If a bear can only see you when you see it, that does not help keep bears away. Since scent is controlled by wind direction, which is unpredictable sound becomes the best warning tool. All training advises you to take advantage of this. They say that to warn an animal with an excellent sense of hearing it is advisable to make lots of noise.
I usually sing to make noise. My go to song is Greg Brown's "If I Had Known," but I have a few other partial songs in my catalog. "If I Had Known" is 3:25 with music. I can pause for a bit between stanzas, but the goal is to make noise, not be artistic. Thus, I rip through that song in about 2:20, I might stretch it to 3 minutes, but either way, I have to sing that song a lot to make it through a full day in the field. So, sometimes I take a break from singing.
When I am not singing, I am not really a geo-ninja. When in the thick of black spruce, moss, willows, tundra, tussocks and alders, I break branches pushing through them, I rustle trees trying to move them out of the way, I hit my shins and fall resulting in me turning the air blue, and if I get really angry with something I break the branches or what have you with my shovel. This, apparently, is not enough noise to warn a creature with excellent hearing of my imminent arrival. Bears, apparently, hear me rolling in on them like a gaggle of drunken sailors on shore leave in a fine china factory, and think to themselves, "what is that noise? It must be a sparrow." Given this line of reasoning, that seems to be common to all bears that will attack you, does singing actually help? Would carting out a rock band help? I am skeptical that if these creatures cannot associate my slow, steady progress through the brush with stick breaking and expletive eruptions as a human coming towards them, that folk music will make them turn and run.
What seems to work with bears is not noise (I am not suggesting that travel should be done with stealth, but rather the noise working in the brush combined with the normal amount of talking and singing should be sufficient), but working in pairs. The buddy system does not eliminate the bear threat, but rather mitigates the risk in the most effective manner. That is why one should never be working hundreds of meters away from anyone else, in an area of high bear sign, swimming through alders, singing, swearing and releasing frustration through fits of blind rage on dead trees.
This brings me to my second bear encounter of the summer. I was hundreds of meters away from anyone else, in an area of high bear sign, having just passed through a bear latrine with fresh scat, swimming through alders, singing, swearing and releasing frustration through fits of blind rage on dead trees.
I exited the alders into a burned area (from a forest fire). I was relieved to be out of the alders, but looking straight into another thick zone of alders between me and my first sample points. I took out my HTC (absolute rubbish for field work) to assess whether I should move farther off my line to avoid the alders, or continue through the alders when I heard a branch break behind me. I turned around to see a bear's ass leap back into the alders at the precise point I exited the brush twenty feet before. I drew my bear spray, easily removed the safety I improvised when my was torn off in alders (a concern of the pistoleros), and called to the team that I had just spooked a bear and it was headed southeast towards Olmos and Stewart. Fillion, who was attacked by a bear a year ago, quickly realized that he was between Olmos and Stewart, he thought through this, and realized that if a bear is headed towards Olmos and Stewart, it is actually headed directly for him! Shatner began to orchestrate a response on the radio, and the chatter began. At this point I realized that the bear had not moved southeast towards the other three crew members, but was glowering at me from the bushes, and all I can see are two eyes and a snout.
They teach you how to recognize bear moods to predict their actions in bear training, and they teach you what to do when you are interacting with a bear. A bear with perky ears and its head up is curious, much like a dog. A bear with its ears back and head down is angry or aggressive. I could not see the bears ears, but its nose was very near the ground, so I leaned towards angry/aggressive, and called on the radio that the bear was not moving, but staring at me. Shatner wanted to know who was closest to me to offer aid. Stewart then radioed to ask what point I was nearest to. In order to answer that question, I had to look at my HTC.
In bear training, they also teach you how to interact with a bear. The best method seems to speak calmly, "hey bear, whoa bear," with your hands above your head to "look big." I had one hand on my pepper spray, taking an aggressive stance, ready to hose the bear down. My other hand was at my radio to key the mic when I had to need to give updates. The only logical thing to do to look big, was to raise my elbows. I was then standing with elbows up, one hand in front, ready to spray, one hand on my radio, and I had to let go of my radio to get my HTC. HTC3, as mine is designated, is slow to connect to the satellites to get GPS points, and is prone to not reliably updating my location on the screen. I turn on the HTC, unlock the screen and wait for the screen to update, with elbows raised, a constant stream of "hey bear, whoa bear" coming out of my mouth. I radioed my location, and the radio chatter began again. I was also thinking the whole time that one should back away slowly from a bear. These burned areas resemble logging slash, and I was quite convinced that backing away would result in me falling backwards, thus, I decided to stand my ground, elbows held high, thumb on the trigger.
Shatner, in an attempt to figure out where Stewart was, had Stewart fire a shot into the air. I heard this request, and realized that Stewart is on the other side of the bear. I braced for the possibility that the shot would frighten the bear into me. Bang, the shot was fired, and it became clear that Stewart, Olmos and Fillion were a long way off. Shatner had obtained visual on me by this point, and was 300 meters away. The bear eventually disappeared out of view, and Shatner gave watch as I moved away from the point of first contact.
When I got approximately twenty meters away from the point of first contact, and Shatner radioed that a small bear emerged from the brush and was moving behind me. I turned around, pepper spray still ready, and could not see anything despite being in the relative clear of the burned area. Eventually I saw a yearling cub bound by, and I continued moving away. The next call I got on the radio was that the cub was changing direction, then coming parallel to me, then overtaking me. This forced me to head more directly towards Shatner. As I began to cross between the cub and the point of first contact, Shatner radioed that he saw a larger bear emerging from the brush at the point of first contact, it was bigger than the cub, and was following my trail.
Shatner continued to navigate me away from the bears, but it required me to move into a thicker area that was difficult to walk through, where I had no visibility. Trusting his guidance, I proceeded. Olmos, Fillion and Stewart were within sight of each other, listening to the radio and organizing themselves when the bad news came.
"brian, I know it is thick in there, but you need to hurry up," then a pause on the radio. I kept walking, singing Greg Brown, and try to think how I was going to walk faster, through brush and fallen trees, with a can of bear spray that did not have a safety tab. I figured if I fell, Shatner would see a puff of orange spray, and could do something to help me. I resolved to speed up, and then call came through, mere seconds after the hurry up call, "I am going to fire a couple of warning shots."
While I do not recall making this transmission, reports are unanimous, I responded, "Okay. I am not happy," in a stern, grumpy, monotone. While I do not recall reporting my unhappiness, I do recall thinking that while I did not know what Shatner could see, I probably did not want to. I motored, as best I could, bear spray sans safety, stumbling through brush and fallen trees.
Eventually I got to Shatner, and then we walked to a nearby cabin. Fillion and Stewart met up with Olmos in view, and we waited for thirty minutes, without the bears following. Fillion, Stewart and Olmos sampled the top of the lines, away from the bears. Shatner and I walked over to points east of the bears, and sampled.
The day was significantly stressful, and after working the adrenaline out of my system, I started to think about what led to the situation. Working this summer, I have been making small compromises on my personal work safety standards in order to get the job done. There were issues at the last project I was working, there were issues with the truck driving here, and there have been issues working here. After yesterday, I requested that I not work without a partner again. Thus, I have made progress back towards safety. Other crew members have made safer choices, and fixed some of the problems that existed here as well. Meaning others are making progress back towards safety as well. As stressful as the day was, and as bad as the day could have gone, it is the occasional serious incident that reminds us the reasons that we have safety standards that are always followed.
Note: I am not working with a crew of actors who have played spaceship captains, but changed names to protect the identity of people and entities that were portrayed in this post.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Visa
My New Zealand visa is at the Post Office in Delta! This means that I am now making travel and moving arrangements. I have gotten my personal effects moving again, and chosen a travel date (24 August). GNS will book the ticket as soon as I have a scan of the visa, then it will feel like I am officially moving to New Zealand (I think)! Next on my list, set up a bank account in NZ, so I have some finances when I arrive.
Out of the Frying Pan
I have transferred to Chicken. I thought the change of scenery might be good for my attitude, but I am not sure this was the right change of scenery. The environmental hazards are slightly diminished, so in some ways, there is less risk to the work. However, we work alone here, which I am not crazy about. I am willing to work alone because we are within a couple hundred meters of each other. In a major emergency, I think this means that one would have people there to watch you die.
As for the scenery itself, I am more fond of glaciated mountains than rolling hills. However, after being married to a girl who loved the Appalachians, I can certainly appreciate the rolling mountains for their beauty. In contrast to the western Alaska Range, I do tend to scoff at the hills, but I am trying. Tromping around black spruce forest will just make Taupo all the better.
My final problem with the Chicken transfer (that I will complain about on the internet, anyway), is that it seems that the state of Alaska, the United States, and probably the world in general, would be better off if this place disappeared (a la the island in Lost) taking these people with them. I have overheard more griping about the raising of the debt ceiling than I thought stupid people could form into words. The US “borrowing” is not like a credit card, America, you cannot just stop using the card! Further, under Clinton, there was a budget surplus. It was after eight years of reckless tax cuts and deregulation to benefit the wealthy under W. that has brought this country to financial ruin. Anyone who has forgotten such things (including every person but me, it seems, in Chicken) can disappear with this horrible little place.
The good news about this transfer? I have been able to eat more veg. At Estelle, the cooks (who were accommodating and wonderful to me) tried to cook veganized meals. I am in charge of my diet here, and I am eating vegan foods. I am looking forward to moving into the “apartment” out of the cabin though, because a hot meal would be pretty nice. Hell, electricity will be nice in general, but the be able to cook a little something to have with my spinach will be a big plus. (5 lbs of blueberries, 15 cups of spinach, 25 oz of hummus, 1 lb of cherries, 12 clementines, 6 muffins, 6 cookies, 2 apples, 2 sandwiches and 1 tomato, if you were wondering what I have been eating to deal with my heaps of perishables and no refrigeration or cooking).
Being here all boils down to 18 more days to get back (closer) to zero. I do not like to start counting this early, but in a place like this, knocking down days is all I can think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)