Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Missing Qantas flight recorder suspicious

Share |
Does anyone believe that there are no suspicious circumstances behind the explosion of the fuselage in the Qantas flight from London to Melbourne via HK. There are several reasons why I think this information is suspicious:
1. I remember my mother telling me how there was an explosion in the Australian parliamentary building years ago, yet it was never reported. There are of course several reasons why government might want to conceal such matters:
a. It doesn't want to show that its not in control, that its security systems are flawed
b. It doesn't want to encourage copy-cat terrorists
2. The flight recorder was wiped of its content for the critical period of the explosion. According to CNN Australian transport department "officials discovered that the period when the crew was dealing with massive depressurization had been recorded over". This would have to be considered suspicious.
3. Gas tanks just don't explode. Something has to cause structural weakness. Might the bottle have been dropped and maintenance crew decided not to report it. If that were the case it seems unlikely that the gas bottle would explode mid-air since the atmosphere in the plane is constant, and the bottle pressure is going to be constant or slowly declining, depending on what the gas was. It seems more likely that a terrorist group recognised the opportunity to use a gas bottle on the plane to cause an explosion.
4. The flight was from London to Australia. There seems great irony in the fact that the two countries who figured prominently in their support for the USA during the Iraq War are now associated with a mid-air (terrorist bomb) blast.

Why cover up the incident? Well successful terrorist acts would be a nail in the coffin of the aviation industry at this time given they are already struggling with discount airlines and high fuel costs. They dont need their complacency about airline flights being identified. Do I think this 'apparent breach of security' is reason to increase security? No. The reality is that terrorists can only bring down a small fraction of the flights in the sky, so aviation will continue to be the safest mode of travel. You might wonder what the real threat is. I believe the greater threat is government who conceals information - supposedly for the sake of consumers. We have no power to decide what is risky enough, to know whether there is adequate security or not, to know information on whether its safe to fly or not.
Andrew Sheldon

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Priorities & the impact of mining

Share |
There is no question that we need minerals for sustaining human lives and development, but when you consider the prices paid for those minerals, its worth pondering whether its worth the price. Great importance is placed by government upon economic growth because that is what sustains job creation, which gives people a sense of value. But it becomes apparent that sometimes countries engage in relationships with others for entirely different reasons than economic interest - reasons such as defence. Australia has long wanted to align itself with the USA and Britain for defence reasons. The government seems to have had considerable insecurity on this point.

When we look at the world, people seem seem to be engaged in a pursuit of financial assets and even physical assets, and in the process they have lost perspective as to what else is important. I know the Filipinos (for all their faults) have not lost perspective on this issue because they are constantly fighting for something more than these values that foreign governments would impose upon them.

I suspect the people of Bougainville are not to different in this respect. Back in the 1980s natives on the island fought against the PNG government for their right to self-determination, and they won it. They won it because they were culturally distinct from PNG, and historically separate from the Solomon Islands. The rebel leaders argued that the Bougainville copper mine operated by CRA (now Rio Tinto) was producing vast amounts of revenue for PNG, but little of the money was being spent in PNG. Well the mine has long since been mothballed, its plant destroyed. But it had a very good case to argue. How fortunate they are. But one must be mindful, are they sacrificing one type of tyranny for another? Recently the President of the country died. He was a respected man. It will be interesting to see how future leaders fare. That was the economic fight. The other aspect of the fight was the environmental disaster. Leaders of poor countries all too often are impressed by the revenue earning capacity of these mines. One need only look at Google satellite images to see the damage done to the property of local communities. Mostly we are talking about contaminated water supplies and fish, which could mean high heavy metal concentrations in food supplies as well. But then you look at the considerably greater damage performed by nature in terms of volcanic eruptions on Bougainville and you wonder if humans are not too bad. :)

The experience goes to show how unfair governments can be with respect to the interests of particular people in society. Being a Western colony, I am quiet sure the PNG constitution would have been framed by the colonists, so we can reflect on democracy as the cause of this problem. Why should we be surprised that the majority would take advantage of minorities, no matter how unintentional those consequences might be. I have read that Australia has one of the unfairest and most complicated tax systems in the world. Reading the Bougainville Constitution, I an wondering if this small country will be any better off.
Andrew Sheldon

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?