Change the Channel?

By |March 16th, 2011

The situation in Japan remains grim. I can’t reasonably report on this, except to say what’s evident by the photographs, videos and usually-reliable sources: a second reactor may have ruptured. There’s been another burst of radioactivity into the air.

Flickr, Official U.S. Air Force photo stream

Meanwhile, thousands of bodies are being discovered in the post-Tsunami landscape along the northeast coast. The Emperor’s speech adds a feeling of gravity, essentially unfathomable to those who are not there, and maybe even to those who didn’t live, first, through the atomic bombings in that country 75 years ago.

people in a shelter, as shown on NHK world TV

Working my/our way* through The Pain of Others, Sontag writes:

What to do with such knowledge as photographs bring of faraway suffering? …For all the voyeuristic lure – and the possible satisfaction of knowing, This is not happening to me, I’m not ill, I’m not dying, I’m not trapped in a war – it seems normal for people to fend off thinking about the ordeals of others…

People can turn off not just because a steady diet of images of violence has made them indifferent but because they are afraid…

She considers the role of TV, and the CNN effect regarding images from the war in Sarajevo, and says now (in the book):

The question turns on a view of the principal medium of the news, television…Images shown on television are by definition images of which, sooner or later, one tires. What looks like callousness has its origin in the instability of attention that television is organized to arouse and to satiate…The whole point of television is that one can switch channels, that it is normal to switch channels….

*in reality, her book-essay – on war imagery – grips with relevance, I sped through.

Probably by now, my dear readers are wishing I’d write on something else, and somewhere else, which indeed I am doing with most of my time now. But I think the real-time contemplation of the images – and why we look at them, or don’t – is valuable in itself.

And also, maybe it would help the people of Japan, there, to know that people are thinking about their plight.

Related Posts:

Considering the Coverage of the Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Reactor Breakdowns

By |March 16th, 2011

Listening to and watching the news, last night and this morning, I’ve heard all kinds of stuff – mainly from reporters who don’t seem to know very much about physics or radiation. (Personal kudos to Anderson Cooper, who seems to have a broader command of the terms and handle on the situation than some of CNN’s designated experts.)

image via multiple sources, originally on NHK world news (link)

In general, my take on the English media coverage so far is that the New York Times is doing a good job with the physics and the unfolding events in themselves (with the exception of an irrelevant, essentially absurd three paragraphs in a strange piece with quotes from a former astronaut on why we should worry about asteroids hitting the earth that fell into the Sunday Week in Review; don’t know how that got through the editor’s non-panic button); Scientific American has some strong coverage on the matter; Slate has its streaming, distinct slant

Here in the U.S., yesterday (and perhaps earlier) some people started worrying how this might affect us, here. Some friends have asked me what I think they should do. Supposedly all companies that manufacture potassium iodide pills have sold out. I don’t offer public health advice here, and I won’t comment on the confusing and contradictory published recommendations and doses for potassium iodide which has, if anything, a limited potential to protect people from thyroid cancer.

The sites below are unfortunately limited in the information they provide, and outdated as I considered last weekend, but the sources are comparatively reliable:

Union of Concerned Scientists

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

CDC on Radiation Emergencies

EPA on What You Can Do

FEMA on Nuclear Power Plant Emergency

Radiation Effects Research Foundation (a joint project of the Japanese and U.S. Governments; hat tip to Merrill Goozner for cluing me into this agency’s existence)

The bottom line is that there’s no easy fix, or ready protection from most forms of radioactivity. My personal opinion is that the risks here are low, essentially negligible, and that the reason to watch all of this is to learn how we (in the big sense, including them) can build better, safer energy sources in the future.

Related Posts:

Still Thinking About the Earthquake in Japan, and How to Help

By |March 15th, 2011

Here is a partial list of agencies helping to provide assistance and relief to the people of Japan during this emergency:

Save the Children

Doctors Without Borders

The American Red Cross*

United Jewish Appeal Japan Earthquake Relief Fund

You may have your own favorite charity, which of course may be the best way for you to help.

And then I found Lady Gaga on-line late this evening; she’s lending a hand with proceeds from special Japan prayer bracelets that she’s designed. Based on her website links, it appears the money she raises, promoted via Twitter, will go to the Citizen Effect Japan Earthquake Relief Fund.  Whatever works -

Addendum, 3/16/11 – I read in today’s NY Times that the Japanese Red Cross is not accepting help from the American Red Cross, or from many other (unspecified) charities and international agencies. I cannot verify the goodness or efficiency of any particular charities, except to say that in general it seems from the pictures that the people in northeast Japan need food and clean water, among other things.

I don’t know which are the “best” ways to help, if you can and want to do so, except that money that can be used as needed is generally considered more effective than sending, say, hundreds of thousands of used shoes and blankets and canned vegetables. Or maybe not.

Related Posts:

Contemplating Empathy, Early This Morning After the Earthquake

By |March 11th, 2011

Last night I began reading a long essay, Regarding the Pain of Others, by Susan Sontag. The work dates to 1993, and centers on the power of photographs of war. She considers Virginia Woolf’s earlier reflections on horrific images from the Spanish Civil War, in Three Guineas.

Sontag writes: “Not to be pained by these pictures, not to recoil from them, not to strive to abolish what causes this havoc…for Woolf, would be the reactions of a moral monster… Our failure is one of imagination, of empathy: we have failed to hold this reality in mind.”

This morning I awoke early and saw video of an earthquake rattling portions of Japan and a tsunami destroying broad swaths of land in a country where I’ve never been. I’m distracted by those images and while I’m trying to work on another subject, my mind flips back to what’s going on there, along the Pacific.

Japanese Tsunami Victims

(from Flickr: Japanese Tsunami Victims, by Logan)

So it seems like the right day to review some basics on empathy. I hope my readers won’t mind if this part is too simple. It’s just that the word is thrown around so often lately, in places like Twitter and Time Magazine, on doctors and compassionate health care; I should remind myself if no one else exactly what empathy is supposed to be.

First, a distinction: Sympathy usually refers to feelings elicited upon a mutual or shared experience; empathy involves understanding another’s experience.

A post on KevinMD by Barbara Ficarra, a few months back, led me to a 2003 academic review on empathy in clinical medicine, by Jodi Halpern, MD, PhD, who writes:

…Outside the field of medicine, empathy is an essentially affective mode of understanding. Empathy involves being moved by another’s experiences. In contrast, a leading group from the Society for General Internal Medicine defines empathy as “the act of correctly acknowledging the emotional state of another without experiencing that state oneself.”3

Halpern explains the difference between empathy and sympathy, with a distinction I was taught in a rudimentary ethics class in medical school:

This recent definition is consistent with the medical literature of the twentieth century, which defines a special professional empathy as purely cognitive, contrasting it with sympathy. Sympathetic physicians risk over-identifying with patients…

Th open-text article in the Journal of General Internal Medicine (18: 670–674, 2003) is well-worth the full read.

Meanwhile I’ve discovered measurable criteria for physicians’ empathy, the so-called Jefferson Scale of Empathy. From the Science Daily (via the Tweet, above) on a report in the journal Academic Medicine:

Researchers used the Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) — developed in 2001 as an instrument to measure empathy in the context of medical education and patient care. This validated instrument relies on the definition of empathy in the context of patient care as a predominately cognitive attribute that involves an understanding and an intention to help. The scale includes 20 items answered on a seven-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree = 7, strongly disagree = 1)…

This sort of empathy rating system seems strange to me, even alienating; it’s plainly too numerical.

I’d rather stick with my feelings, and stare at today’s photographs and videos, and finish reading Sontag’s notes on The Pain of Others, this evening.

Monster Quake Hits Japan (the Australian.com, March 11, 2011)

—-
ADVERTISEMENTS:

Related Posts:

newsletter software
Get Adobe Flash player