![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brdgt
Animated Bambi Debate Arouses Pastoral Passions
By PATRICIA COHEN, The New York Times, April 23, 2008
When Ollie Johnston, one of Disney’s pioneering animators died at 95 last week, his family requested that instead of flowers mourners should donate to an environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Anyone who has seen “Bambi,” one of the many films that Mr. Johnston worked on, can understand why. The loving depiction of the woods and animals, particularly Bambi with those big soulful eyes and long lashes, was hailed by wildlife conservationists and denounced by hunters when it was released in 1942. An insult, declared Outdoor Life magazine, while the National Audubon Society compared its consciousness-raising power to “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”
Just how much of a friend Disney has been to woodland folk (and their kin in the sea and the jungle) has long been batted about by scholars and writers. The latest addition to the debate comes just in time for Disney’s announcement this week that it is creating a new production unit for nature documentaries (not to mention Tuesday’s Earth Day celebrations).
In “The Idea of Nature in Disney Animation” (Ashgate), David Whitley, a lecturer at Cambridge University, argues, in the overstuffed prose that launched a thousand academic careers, that the finely wrought imagery and emotional power of Disney movies like “Bambi” and “Finding Nemo” helped inspire generations of environmentalists.
“These films have taught us variously about having a fundamental respect for nature,” he writes. “Some of them, such as Bambi, inspired conservation awareness and laid the emotional groundwork for environmental activism.”
Jon Coifman, the Defense Council’s director of media relations, wrote in an e-mail message: “Snow White, Robin Hood, Bambi. The forest is where they captured our imagination.”
And in a comment that the folks over at the newly formed Disneynature might want to take note of, he added, “All those wildlife documentaries, on the other hand, were highly staged and never managed to rise above a 1950s sensibility about man’s dominion over nature.”
Of course it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to see the nature-loving themes in Disney movies: hunters kill Bambi’s mother and burn down a forest; Pocahontas sings “The rainstorm and the river are my brothers/The heron and the otter are my friends/And we are all connected to each other.”
But many scholars have taken Disney to task on this very issue, citing the company for environmentally unfriendly policies and the films for candy-coated sentimentalism and distorted views of nature and animals.
Ralph H. Lutts, the author of “The Nature Fakers: Wildlife, Science & Sentiment,” wrote that Disney’s version of the original Bambi story by Felix Salten, first published in English in 1928, was “a ‘Sunday school’ vision of nature as a place without stress, conflict or death,” and that compared with the original story on which it is based, the Disney version was a much less “ecologically and philosophically complex vision of nature.” And while the Oxford scholar Marina Warner declares, “It is simply unthinking and lazy to denounce all the works of Disney and his legacy,” she too has been critical of the black-and-white viewpoint of the films.
Rod M. Fujita, the director of Oceans Programs at the Environmental Defense Fund, acknowledged the dangers of such simplification. “Movies and nature documentaries that tug at one’s heartstrings and offer simplified ways of understanding complex environmental problems can provide a bump up in awareness of nature and threats to nature, and can also motivate action to address those threats,” he wrote in an e-mail message. “But unfortunately these effects seem to be quite transitory.” They “won’t result in behavior and attitudinal changes by themselves — they need to be reinforced by deeper learning experiences.”
But to Mr. Whitley the very sentimentalism and simplification that are criticized is what gives these animated features the emotional power that makes them effective environmental messengers. For instance, “the way the landscape is shot” in “Bambi,” he said, “angles the film’s attachment to ideas of conservation in particular ways.” The emotionally wrenching scene of Bambi’s mother being shot (off screen) underscores the impact of the natural scenes.
Mr. Whitley steers clear of other activities by Disney, which has tangled with environmentalists before, for example, over plans to build a ski resort in the unspoiled Mineral King Valley in the Sierra Nevada. Rather, he is interested in a close viewing of the cartoons themselves.
Through the decades the films have embraced different classic conceptions of nature, Mr. Whitley argues. “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” presents the pastoral vision where nature is seen as a place for self-discovery in the tradition of Thoreau. The animal helpers are a crucial part of this 1937 landmark film, the first of Disney’s animated features. “Bambi” adopts the view of American naturalists like John Muir and artists like Ansel Adams who exalt in the virgin wilderness, while “Finding Nemo” and “Tarzan” depict a more complex world where humans and animals can exist harmoniously.
Are they escapist? Sure, Mr. Whitley concedes. But such films “also have the potential for putting us in touch with issues, in playful forms,” that can allow “audiences to think as well as feel.”
Really? The Claim: During a Seizure, You Can Swallow Your Tongue
By ANAHAD O’CONNOR, The New York Times, April 22, 2008
THE FACTS
One problem with old wives’ tales and medical myths is that they can sometimes lead well-meaning people to do ill-advised things. Armed with the adage that people having seizures can swallow their tongue, Good Samaritans will sometimes try to force an object into the victim’s mouth to keep that from happening.
A persistent belief, experts say, but a wrong and potentially injurious one.
Swallowing the tongue is virtually impossible. In the human mouth, a small piece of tissue called the frenulum linguae, which sits behind the teeth and under the tongue, keeps the tongue in place, even during a seizure.
Ryan Brett, the director of education for the Epilepsy Institute in New York, said people who witness a seizure often reach for a wallet, a spoon, or a dirty object to stick in the person’s mouth, much to the chagrin of epilepsy patients. He said he frequently conducted first-aid workshops in which he had to disabuse people of the myth.
“The only thing that happens when something is put in the mouth is you end up cutting someone’s gums or injuring the teeth,” he said. “We get complaints all the time.”
The best way to help, instead, is to roll the person on one side to drain fluids from the mouth, cushion the head to prevent cranial injuries, and seek medical help if necessary.
THE BOTTOM LINE Never place an object in a person’s mouth during a seizure.
Panel Finds Link Between Smog and Premature Death
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, The New York Times, April 22, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Short-term exposure to smog, or ozone, is clearly linked to premature deaths that should be taken into account when measuring the health benefits of reducing air pollution, a National Academy of Sciences report concluded Tuesday.
The findings contradict arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits.
The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies ''should give little or no weight'' to such arguments.
''The committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths,'' the 13-member panel said.
It added that ''studies have yielded strong evidence that short-term exposure to ozone can exacerbate lung conditions, causing illness and hospitalization and can potentially lead to death.''
The White House Office of Management and Budget, which in its review of air quality regulations has raised questions about the certainty of the pollution and mortality link, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
''The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death,'' said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based advocacy organization.
Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the Academy's findings ''refutes the White House skepticism and denial'' of a proven link between acute ozone exposure and premature deaths. Such arguments have been used to diminish the health benefits of reducing air pollution, she said.
The Academy panel examined short-term exposure -- up to 24 hours -- to high levels of ozone, but said more studies also were needed on long-term chronic exposure where the risk of premature death ''may be larger than those observed in acute effects studies alone.''
Ground-level ozone is formed from nitrogen oxide and organic compounds created by burning fossil fuels and is demonstrated often by the yellow haze or smog that lingers in the air. Ozone exposure is a leading cause of respiratory illnesses and especially affects the elderly, those with respiratory problems and children.
While premature death from ozone exposure is greater among individuals with lung and heart disease, the report said such deaths are not restricted to people who are at a high risk of death within a few days.
The scientists said they could not determine, based on a review of health studies, whether there is a threshold below which no fatalities can be assured from ozone exposure. If there is such a point, it is below the ozone levels allowed for public health.
Environmentalists and health advocates have argued that a string of health studies and surveys show that exposure to smoggy air not only aggravates respiratory problems, but causes thousands of deaths a year.
But in a number of instances the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews regulations, have been at odds over the certainty of a link between smog levels and deaths.
Patton said the OMB in a number of air pollution regulations has sought to minimize the relationship of pollution and premature deaths, resulting in a lower calculation of health benefits from pollution reductions.
''This has been used by industry to try to attack health standards by minimizing the societal benefits,'' said Patton.
One such case involves the EPA's decision last month to toughen the ozone health standard, reducing the allowable concentration in the air.
When the cost-benefit analysis was being prepared in connection with the rulemaking, the OMB argued there is ''considerable uncertainty'' in the association between ozone levels and deaths.
As a result, the EPA issued a wide cost-benefit range from an annual net societal cost of $20 billion to a savings of $23 billion, depending largely on whether one takes into account lives saved from ozone-related premature deaths.
OMB officials also have objected to the EPA quantifying ozone-related mortality benefits in new emissions standards for lawn mowers and other small engines that release large amounts of ozone-forming pollution.
In response, the EPA removed ''all references to quantified ozone benefits'' in the proposed rule, according to an e-mail sent by EPA to the OMB. The small engine regulation is awaiting final action.
By PATRICIA COHEN, The New York Times, April 23, 2008
When Ollie Johnston, one of Disney’s pioneering animators died at 95 last week, his family requested that instead of flowers mourners should donate to an environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Anyone who has seen “Bambi,” one of the many films that Mr. Johnston worked on, can understand why. The loving depiction of the woods and animals, particularly Bambi with those big soulful eyes and long lashes, was hailed by wildlife conservationists and denounced by hunters when it was released in 1942. An insult, declared Outdoor Life magazine, while the National Audubon Society compared its consciousness-raising power to “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”
Just how much of a friend Disney has been to woodland folk (and their kin in the sea and the jungle) has long been batted about by scholars and writers. The latest addition to the debate comes just in time for Disney’s announcement this week that it is creating a new production unit for nature documentaries (not to mention Tuesday’s Earth Day celebrations).
In “The Idea of Nature in Disney Animation” (Ashgate), David Whitley, a lecturer at Cambridge University, argues, in the overstuffed prose that launched a thousand academic careers, that the finely wrought imagery and emotional power of Disney movies like “Bambi” and “Finding Nemo” helped inspire generations of environmentalists.
“These films have taught us variously about having a fundamental respect for nature,” he writes. “Some of them, such as Bambi, inspired conservation awareness and laid the emotional groundwork for environmental activism.”
Jon Coifman, the Defense Council’s director of media relations, wrote in an e-mail message: “Snow White, Robin Hood, Bambi. The forest is where they captured our imagination.”
And in a comment that the folks over at the newly formed Disneynature might want to take note of, he added, “All those wildlife documentaries, on the other hand, were highly staged and never managed to rise above a 1950s sensibility about man’s dominion over nature.”
Of course it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to see the nature-loving themes in Disney movies: hunters kill Bambi’s mother and burn down a forest; Pocahontas sings “The rainstorm and the river are my brothers/The heron and the otter are my friends/And we are all connected to each other.”
But many scholars have taken Disney to task on this very issue, citing the company for environmentally unfriendly policies and the films for candy-coated sentimentalism and distorted views of nature and animals.
Ralph H. Lutts, the author of “The Nature Fakers: Wildlife, Science & Sentiment,” wrote that Disney’s version of the original Bambi story by Felix Salten, first published in English in 1928, was “a ‘Sunday school’ vision of nature as a place without stress, conflict or death,” and that compared with the original story on which it is based, the Disney version was a much less “ecologically and philosophically complex vision of nature.” And while the Oxford scholar Marina Warner declares, “It is simply unthinking and lazy to denounce all the works of Disney and his legacy,” she too has been critical of the black-and-white viewpoint of the films.
Rod M. Fujita, the director of Oceans Programs at the Environmental Defense Fund, acknowledged the dangers of such simplification. “Movies and nature documentaries that tug at one’s heartstrings and offer simplified ways of understanding complex environmental problems can provide a bump up in awareness of nature and threats to nature, and can also motivate action to address those threats,” he wrote in an e-mail message. “But unfortunately these effects seem to be quite transitory.” They “won’t result in behavior and attitudinal changes by themselves — they need to be reinforced by deeper learning experiences.”
But to Mr. Whitley the very sentimentalism and simplification that are criticized is what gives these animated features the emotional power that makes them effective environmental messengers. For instance, “the way the landscape is shot” in “Bambi,” he said, “angles the film’s attachment to ideas of conservation in particular ways.” The emotionally wrenching scene of Bambi’s mother being shot (off screen) underscores the impact of the natural scenes.
Mr. Whitley steers clear of other activities by Disney, which has tangled with environmentalists before, for example, over plans to build a ski resort in the unspoiled Mineral King Valley in the Sierra Nevada. Rather, he is interested in a close viewing of the cartoons themselves.
Through the decades the films have embraced different classic conceptions of nature, Mr. Whitley argues. “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” presents the pastoral vision where nature is seen as a place for self-discovery in the tradition of Thoreau. The animal helpers are a crucial part of this 1937 landmark film, the first of Disney’s animated features. “Bambi” adopts the view of American naturalists like John Muir and artists like Ansel Adams who exalt in the virgin wilderness, while “Finding Nemo” and “Tarzan” depict a more complex world where humans and animals can exist harmoniously.
Are they escapist? Sure, Mr. Whitley concedes. But such films “also have the potential for putting us in touch with issues, in playful forms,” that can allow “audiences to think as well as feel.”
Really? The Claim: During a Seizure, You Can Swallow Your Tongue
By ANAHAD O’CONNOR, The New York Times, April 22, 2008
THE FACTS
One problem with old wives’ tales and medical myths is that they can sometimes lead well-meaning people to do ill-advised things. Armed with the adage that people having seizures can swallow their tongue, Good Samaritans will sometimes try to force an object into the victim’s mouth to keep that from happening.
A persistent belief, experts say, but a wrong and potentially injurious one.
Swallowing the tongue is virtually impossible. In the human mouth, a small piece of tissue called the frenulum linguae, which sits behind the teeth and under the tongue, keeps the tongue in place, even during a seizure.
Ryan Brett, the director of education for the Epilepsy Institute in New York, said people who witness a seizure often reach for a wallet, a spoon, or a dirty object to stick in the person’s mouth, much to the chagrin of epilepsy patients. He said he frequently conducted first-aid workshops in which he had to disabuse people of the myth.
“The only thing that happens when something is put in the mouth is you end up cutting someone’s gums or injuring the teeth,” he said. “We get complaints all the time.”
The best way to help, instead, is to roll the person on one side to drain fluids from the mouth, cushion the head to prevent cranial injuries, and seek medical help if necessary.
THE BOTTOM LINE Never place an object in a person’s mouth during a seizure.
Panel Finds Link Between Smog and Premature Death
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, The New York Times, April 22, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Short-term exposure to smog, or ozone, is clearly linked to premature deaths that should be taken into account when measuring the health benefits of reducing air pollution, a National Academy of Sciences report concluded Tuesday.
The findings contradict arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits.
The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies ''should give little or no weight'' to such arguments.
''The committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths,'' the 13-member panel said.
It added that ''studies have yielded strong evidence that short-term exposure to ozone can exacerbate lung conditions, causing illness and hospitalization and can potentially lead to death.''
The White House Office of Management and Budget, which in its review of air quality regulations has raised questions about the certainty of the pollution and mortality link, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
''The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death,'' said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based advocacy organization.
Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the Academy's findings ''refutes the White House skepticism and denial'' of a proven link between acute ozone exposure and premature deaths. Such arguments have been used to diminish the health benefits of reducing air pollution, she said.
The Academy panel examined short-term exposure -- up to 24 hours -- to high levels of ozone, but said more studies also were needed on long-term chronic exposure where the risk of premature death ''may be larger than those observed in acute effects studies alone.''
Ground-level ozone is formed from nitrogen oxide and organic compounds created by burning fossil fuels and is demonstrated often by the yellow haze or smog that lingers in the air. Ozone exposure is a leading cause of respiratory illnesses and especially affects the elderly, those with respiratory problems and children.
While premature death from ozone exposure is greater among individuals with lung and heart disease, the report said such deaths are not restricted to people who are at a high risk of death within a few days.
The scientists said they could not determine, based on a review of health studies, whether there is a threshold below which no fatalities can be assured from ozone exposure. If there is such a point, it is below the ozone levels allowed for public health.
Environmentalists and health advocates have argued that a string of health studies and surveys show that exposure to smoggy air not only aggravates respiratory problems, but causes thousands of deaths a year.
But in a number of instances the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews regulations, have been at odds over the certainty of a link between smog levels and deaths.
Patton said the OMB in a number of air pollution regulations has sought to minimize the relationship of pollution and premature deaths, resulting in a lower calculation of health benefits from pollution reductions.
''This has been used by industry to try to attack health standards by minimizing the societal benefits,'' said Patton.
One such case involves the EPA's decision last month to toughen the ozone health standard, reducing the allowable concentration in the air.
When the cost-benefit analysis was being prepared in connection with the rulemaking, the OMB argued there is ''considerable uncertainty'' in the association between ozone levels and deaths.
As a result, the EPA issued a wide cost-benefit range from an annual net societal cost of $20 billion to a savings of $23 billion, depending largely on whether one takes into account lives saved from ozone-related premature deaths.
OMB officials also have objected to the EPA quantifying ozone-related mortality benefits in new emissions standards for lawn mowers and other small engines that release large amounts of ozone-forming pollution.
In response, the EPA removed ''all references to quantified ozone benefits'' in the proposed rule, according to an e-mail sent by EPA to the OMB. The small engine regulation is awaiting final action.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 02:29 pm (UTC)Somehow I don't think going to an air-conditioned movie theater, or plopping down in front of a television, is a good way to get an appreciation for nature and the forest.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 02:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 02:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 03:36 pm (UTC)Whoo eco-feminism!
no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 04:32 pm (UTC)