AT: Language (K)
Language isn’t inherently violent – violence exists independent of it
Apressyan, 98, Ruben G. Chair – Department of Ethics – Institute of Philosophy in Moscow, Director – Research and Education Center for the Ethics of Nonviolence, and Professor of Moral Philosophy – Moscow Lomonosov State University, Peace Review, v. 10 i. 4, December,
There is another aspect, however. Language per se is not violent; although, it easily may become an object of violence. This defenselessness against violence, means that violence exists beyond language. Speech is a prerogative of reason: violence is speechless. This means that violence has no need of language. With the help of language, violence may mark itself, give itself a kind of justification, allude to itself, or hide itself in various forms of reserve and awesomeness. Potential violence may resolve into speech or disembodied words. But in turn, words themselves, or words inserted into certain contexts or articulated with a certain intonation may appear as potentially violent. Thus language becomes a means of violence which "keeps silence."
Latin American economies resilient – IMF report and this recession proves
Mary Swire 2008: Latin America and the Caribbean Region Resilient So Far, But Risks Ahead. http://www.tax-news.com/archive/story/Latin_America_and_the_Caribbean_Region_Resilient_So_Far_But_Risks_Ahead_xxxx30648.html
Economies in the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region have generally held up well so far in the face of recent global financial strains, according to the IMF's latest Regional Economic Outlook: Western Hemisphere, released late last week.
Many countries in the region are benefiting from stronger fiscal and external positions and improved credibility of policy frameworks, according to Anoop Singh, Director of the IMF's Western Hemisphere Department.
The IMF observed that stresses in US financial markets have had less impact on the region's financial markets and external funding than in past episodes of global financial disruptions.
Although external funding conditions have tightened, especially for the LAC corporate sector, this has been by less than in the past, and also less than in some other emerging markets. However, Mr Singh noted that a deteriorating global environment will weaken fiscal and external positions, especially because public spending continues to be procyclical in many countries.
Mr Singh added that the prospects for a number of countries have been strongly supported by still-strong commodity prices.
AT: LNG Explosion 1/2
1. Their impact of LNG explosion is false – explosion presents less threat than fire, an impact that has been contained.
Parfomak 03 (Paul W., Specialist in Science and Technology , Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Infrastructure Security: Background and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service - Library of Congress. September 9, 2003. (Acrobat PDF file, 25 pgs, 228 kb))
The potential hazard from terror attacks on LNG tankers continues to be debated among experts. One recent study of tankers serving the Everett LNG terminal assessed the impact of 1) a hand-held missile attack on the external hull, and 2) a bomb attack from a small boat next to the hull (similar to the Limberg attack). The study found that “loss of containment may occur through shock mechanisms caused by small amounts of explosive.”59 The study concluded that “a deliberate attack on an LNG carrier can result in a ... threat to both the ship, its crew and members of the public.”60 However, the study also found the risk of a public catastrophe to be small. For example, the study found that the LNG pool hazard would be less than that for a gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pool.61 The study also concluded that a vaporized LNG explosion would be unlikely because a missile or bomb presents multiple ignition sources. Other experts have calculated that an LNG fire under “worst case” conditions could be much more hazardous to waterfront facilities.63 Impact estimates for LNG tanker attacks are largely based on engineering models, however, each with its own input assumptions–so it is difficult to assert definitively how dangerous a real attack would be.
2. LNG explosion won’t create a huge plume or massive deaths
Melhem et al 06 – PHD Professor of Structural Engineering (Dr. G. A. Melhem, Dr. A. S. Kalelkar, Dr. S. Saraf “Managing LNG Risks: Separating the Facts from the Myths” updated 2006, http://archives1.iomosaic.com/whitepapers/Managing%20LNG%20Risks.pdf)
Myth No. 3 An LNG tanker accident could cause the release of all five tanks LNG content. This will create a plume that would extend 30 miles. Upon delayed ignition thousands of people within the plume would be instantly killed. Fact LNG is not flammable until it is vaporized, mixed in the right proportions with air, and then ignited. The measured minimum ignition energy of LNG vapors is 0.29 mJ (milli-Joules). Flammable LNG vapors are easily ignited by machinery, cigarettes, and static electricity. Static electricity discharged when one walks on a carpet or brushes his/her hair is 10 mJ, or 35 times the amount required to ignite LNG vapors. A large LNG vapor cloud cannot travel far into developed areas without igniting and burning back to the source. A scenario describing LNG vapor clouds impacting entire cities is “pure fiction”. The vapor cloud and subsequent pool fire will have a potentially significant impact on the immediate release area and downwind to the first ignition source. This significantly limits the extent of impact. It is not realistic to imagine that all five tanks on an LNG tanker can be instantaneously released. To instantaneously remove the double hulled side of an LNG ship would require an enormous amount of explosive. The explosive used to breach the hull would cause more damage to the surroundings than the subsequent LNG spill and pool fire. To mount such an attack on an LNG ship would require the equivalent of a full-scale military operation, not a clandestine terrorist operation. Since the early 1980s, the scientific community clearly demonstrated that a Gaussian dispersion model (the same model used to estimate the 30 mile dispersion distance) is not appropriate for LNG vapor dispersion. Dispersion estimates using a proper heavy gas model are reported in the recent Sandia study. The potential to realize major injuries and significant damage to property resulting from an intentional breach scenario extends less than ½ mile from the spill origin.
3. An LNG explosion would do minimal damage – this specifically indicts their impact evidence
Lloyd's Register, 4 – Leading participants in the safety and verification of LNG facilities around the world (“Statement on LNG risks from Lloyd's Register North America, Inc.” 9-23-2004, http://www.lr.org/News+and+Events/News+Archive/2004/Statement+on+LNG+risks+from+Lloyds+Register+North+America+Inc.htm) AMK
LNG. The real risks In the US, regulators and other interested parties have identified as key concerns the possibility of a terrorist attack involving an LNG terminal or an LNG carrier, and the consequences for the surrounding population and infrastructure. Global terrorism is certainly a major threat and all reasonable measures should and must be taken to mitigate the risks and consequences of any actions, however, commentators and observers are incorrect if they believe that a terrorist attack on an LNG carrier would have the impact of a nuclear explosion. There are several technical reasons which bear this out: 1. LNG is transported globally in insulated tanks on specialised ships. These tanks provide four physical barriers and two layers of insulation between the LNG and the outside environment. Further, the separation between the inner and outer hulls of an LNG carrier is typically over two meters. These two factors combined mean that LNG cargo carried at sea has a very high in-built level of protection from external blast sources. 2. In the event of an attack, even if a one-meter hole were to be formed in the inner hull, the resultant holes in the primary containment barrier would be significantly smaller due to the increased separation distance from the blast source combined with the pressure absorption properties of the secondary containment barrier and insulation materials. 3. It is unrealistic to imagine that the entire cargo of any ship can be instantaneously released. To mount an attack on an LNG carrier that would result in the instantaneous release of all of its cargo would require the equivalent of a full scale military operation, not a clandestine terrorist operation like those carried out against the USS Cole and the Limburg. 4. The idea that LNG carriers are potential nuclear devices is erroneous. There is a lot of energy in LNG and natural gas, as in any hydrocarbon. However, the 'nuclear explosion' statement describes the total energy an LNG carrier contains, not the rate at which the energy would be released in an incident. For example, a lump of coal contains lots of energy, but when set on fire, its energy doesn't all come out instantly like a bomb. Instead, the coal burns over a period of time releasing its energy as it goes. Similarly, LNG carriers contain large quantities of energy, but the energy can only be released slowly in the event of a spill or a fire. 5. An LNG spill in open air will not result in a bomb-like explosion. This has been consistently demonstrated in experiments. Not everything that is ignited explodes like a bomb. For example, when a match is lit, it burns but does not explode. Similarly, the natural gas vapour that could result from an LNG carrier spill also falls under the category of substances that will burn but not explode like a bomb. Reason and caution Paul Huber, Director of LRNA, says: "There are risks associated with the transport and storage of LNG, as there are with any hydrocarbon energy source, and these are precisely the reasons that the LNG industry operates with extensive international and national regulations which govern the safety of LNG transport and storage. The effectiveness of these regulations is apparent in the LNG shipping sector, which has an unblemished safety record spanning 40 years - a track record which is unrivalled by any other maritime sector and most land-based industries. It should also be remembered that LNG itself is one of the cleanest-burning and most environmentally friendly energy sources currently available on a global scale. "While the shadow of terrorism hangs over us, we have to do as much as we can to protect ourselves and our borders, but it is misleading to state, as some have, that an attack on an LNG carrier would be similar to a nuclear event. It is difficult for us to know the rationale behind the assertion contained in the speech to the Houston Forum, but it is clear that it is not supported by fact.
Share with your friends: |