Environmental Impacts of Nuclear Material

Introduction The debate on exploration and utilization of nuclear material revolves around safety concerns, especially on what it portends to humans, plants, animals and the environment upon exposure to radioactive elements. Proponents as well as opponents are sharply divided on socioeconomic as well as environmental sustainability and suitability of nuclear programs.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Environmental Impacts of Nuclear Material specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Ironically, both sides of this debate agree that nuclear programs create significant safety risks to users as well as to the natural environment. However, proponents argue that opposing the utilization of nuclear materials is shortsighted since this is an act of utility. There are numerous benefits not only to countries that invest in nuclear programs but also to the entire global community. For instance the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA argues that establishing nuclear programs requires massive funding. However these costs can be recouped on the long term from money saved from foregoing other expensive sources of energy. Additionally, proponents argue that nuclear programs have long term socioeconomic and environmental benefits since nuclear energy reduces greenhouse emissions. As such, these programs are in support of global initiatives towards the reduction of greenhouse emissions. Additionally, IAEA argues that nuclear power is relatively cheaper compared to other sources of energy. Thus, in nuclear programs, countries have access to cheaper and sustainable sources of energy, which enhances economic growth and development (International Energy Agency 4 to 8). While the hotly contested debate on the usability, viability and sustainability of nuclear programs ranges on, industry players tend to agree with IAEA. This has resulted to a series of agreements, popularly referred to as Nuclear Cooperation Agreements NCAs, being signed to facilitate sharing of knowledge on the utilization of nuclear resources to promote peaceful coexistence among nation as well as social economic development. These agreements, proposed by The US President Dwight Eisenhower while addressing theUN General Assembly in 1953, ushered in the atomic age. These treaties are aimed at promoting the use of nuclear materials for the attainment of global peace, social economic prosperity of nations as well as for environmental sustainability (Fuhrmann 7). The International Energy Agency claims that the use of nuclear power dropped by about 1.8% towards the year 2010 (International Energy Agency 5 to 6). Regardless of this, Fuhrmann argues that there is a significant increase in the number of NCAs signed over the same period (8).Advertising Looking for research paper on environmental studies? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More For instance, France is among the s tates that have signed numerous NCAs with countries such as Libya and UAE, to produce nuclear power. Such agreements are intended to mitigate the effects of energy shortages resulting from the increase in prices of crude oil. Additionally, these countries intend to use NCA programs as measures to curb global warming (Fuhrmann 7). NCAs are designed to promote peaceful cooperation in sharing nuclear resources. However, there are concerns that NCAs leads to proliferation of nuclear weapons. Opponents of NCAs argue that proliferation of nuclear weapons emanates from the demand side of the demand-supply mechanism, rather than from a country’s capacity and capability to produce these weapons. As such, the supply side is usually compelled to meet the requirements of the demand side, motivated by financial benefits. Regardless of this, those who support nuclear programs argue that most of NCA programs are innocuous as they are designed to offer assistance to countries with weaker tec hnical abilities to utilize nuclear resources (Fuhrmann 7). Such an approach is however, wrong because nuclear resources can be used for other purposes other than production of energy. The risk of proliferation cannot be dissociated from NCA programs since, by receiving technical assistance, countries increase their capacity and ability to utilize nuclear resources for functions other than generation of energy. As such, the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons exists alongside existing NCAs (Sagan 58). Arguments on the threat posed by nuclear programs are not purely theoretical. There is sufficient evidence to prove that sharing knowledge on how to utilize nuclear resources increases the risks of nuclear calamities. For instance, recent findings from countries such as South Africa, Pakistan and India indicates that there is an increase in hazardous activities, especially proliferation of nuclear weapons after the introduction of US backed NAC programs (Fuhrmann 15). These three countries are some of the practical examples which portray risks outlined by Fuhrmann, and indicate that the risks and challenges emanating from exploitation of nuclear materials cannot be ignored.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Environmental Impacts of Nuclear Material specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The focus on proliferation of nuclear weapons in the preceding section describes facts from existing studies and is intended to highlight salient risks caused by nuclear programs. This paper focuses on environmental risks posed by nuclear programs. Therefore, the following questions seem relevant for this paper: what are the environmental effects caused by nuclear programs? To what extent is the environment affected by effects of nuclear activities? In light of the findings highlighted above, it is imperative to acknowledge that nuclear programs have multiple effects, both positive and negative, on the e nvironment, the global economy as well as social set up of affected communities. As indicated earlier, risks posed by nuclear programs ought not to be ignored. Therefore, it seems relevant to hypothesize that despite assured benefits, there are serious environmental effects emanating from nuclear programs. To defend this assertion, the theoretical underpinnings as well as supporting evidence are outlined in the sections that follow. The interaction of nuclear material with the environment: causes This section begins by explaining the context within which the term environment is used. In his research paper, Fuhrmann repeatedly uses the term ‘security environment’ in relation to international peace and security. In his paper, Fuhrmann uses the term environment to refer to all variables that determine peaceful utilization of nuclear resources for mutual benefit. However, in this research paper, the term environment refers to all components of nature including atmospheric e lements as well as the biosphere. Having stated this, it is imperative to explain how nuclear materials cause environmental harm. In this case, the section begins by explaining ways through which radioactive material interacts with the environment. During the process of nuclear power production, it is almost impossible to prevent the release of radioactive material into the environment. This is due to the fact that the production of nuclear power involves the release of radionuclides into the environment during the front and the back end processes. Radionuclides are released in form of gases and liquids. To prevent environmental damages from the said radionuclides, nuclear power generators employ a control system referred to as Dose Limitation Control. The system is designed such that it optimizes the protection of the environment around a nuclear power plant, human beings and animals living nearby.Advertising Looking for research paper on environmental studies? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Currently, there exist stringent safety measures that ensure dose release elements are maintained at slightly over one thousandth of the standards limits. Regardless of these safety measures, there is a critical element of routine release that requires further attention. Studies reveal that there are three potentially harmful radionuclides released during this process. These are 3H, 85Kr and 15C, and are released into the environment either as gasses or liquids (Paschoa 1, 2). Therefore one of the major interaction methods involves dose control emissions. Other than interactions emanating from dose control emissions, there are potential environmental hazards associated with nuclear accidents. Accidents can either occur during the process of production, negligence, technical failure, equipment failure or as a result of a natural calamity such as an earthquake. To minimize the threat of possible accidents, designers of nuclear power plants conduct extensive surveys on intended sites o f construction to determine stability and suitability. These surveys also include the surrounding environment, the people living around the area and orography. Data from such surveys is used to determine possible effects on the surrounding environment in the event of an accident (Paschoa 3). Measures to prevent the occurrence of accidents are not however, 100 % effective. Numerous accidents have occurred in the last 40 years. These accidents casts doubt on safety measures undertaken by nuclear power producers and heighten the fears of serous environmental risks. In addition to these, the extraction of nuclear materials emits significant amounts of greenhouse gasses such as CO2. Moreover, disposal of radioactive waste is suspected to have negative effects on the environment. As reported by World Information Transfer, an organization that largely lobbies for sharing of information on safety issues regarding handling of nuclear materials, nuclear accidents occur as a result of differen t causes (4). However, the turning point on nuclear disaster management was the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The Chernobyl disaster is attributed to the combination of engineering deficiencies and poor operational conditions within the nuclear reactors. This led to an uncontrollable power surge. The subsequent nuclear meltdown culminated in a series of events which released radioactive material into the surrounding environment (GreenFacts n.pgn; World Information Transfer 2). While the Chernobyl disaster resulted from preventable human errors, the Fukushima nuclear accident resulted from an earthquake, which experts termed as unpredictable and unpreventable (World Information Transfer 2). Regardless of the cause of nuclear accidents, the effects of such accident are disastrous. Environmental impacts of radioactive materials In the previous section, attempts are made to provide the theoretical underpinnings on ways through which exploitation of nuclear material leads to release of rad ionuclides into the environment. In light of these findings, it is imperative to highlight the possible effects on the environment before analyzing them Vis a Vis existing cases. As explained earlier, radionuclides are released in form of gases and liquids and pose significant threat to the natural environment, which includes the atmosphere and the biosphere. These effects are outlined as follows. As a result of nuclear accidents, radioactive materials such as Iodine are released into the atmosphere. Radioiodine is readily absorbed by plants and animals. Additionally, Caesium134 caesium137 are readily absorbed by grazing animals. Moreover, studies conducted indicate that wild plants such as berries, mushrooms as well as edible wild animals are capable of absorbing these radioactive elements. As such people who consume products from contaminated animals and plants face the risk of contamination. Further studies reveal that consumption of contaminated foodstuffs causes cancer and othe r incurable ailments such as leukemia and lymphoma (Baker and Hoel 358). Furthermore, nuclear scientists have had concerns on the impacts of radioactive material on the genetic make up of organisms living contaminated areas. Therefore, there is likelihood of alteration to the genetic design of affected organisms. Additionally, there are possibilities of reduction in rates of reproduction by animals and plants living in affected areas. These studies further reveal that some organisms record genetic deformities. Nuclear activities also release significant elements of radioactive active material especially caesium137 and strontium90. These materials are readily absorbed by marine animals especially fish. Even though the consumption of contaminated fish poses no significant threat, it nevertheless leads to redistribution of fish and other forms of marine life (GreenFacts n.pgn; Yoshimoto 355; Sovacool 141). Having highlighted the probable effects of radioactive material on the environme nt, it is imperative to analyze these effects Vis a Vis existing cases. As explained earlier there are numerous cases where accidents led to release of radioactive elements into the environment. However, this paper will focus on two of these cases namely, the Chernobyl and the Fukushima nuclear disasters. The choice of these two is influenced by the significance with which these two cases have on the politics of nuclear safety management. Fukushima nuclear disaster: environmental effects According to the World Information Transfer, the full extent of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on the environment cannot be ascertained (2). However, there are significant amounts of radioactive materials found in soils, air and water within the 30 kilometer radius of the affected area. For instance soil samples taken from this area were found to have significant amounts of radioactive isotopes of Cesium, Strontium and Peritoneum. As a result, the government banned agricultural activities around thi s area, especially rice farming since these isotopes are easily absorbed by rice plants. Additionally, substantive amounts of radioactive elements were found to contaminate pastures fed to cows reared for beef and milk. As such, the government of Japan banned the consumption of dairy products manufactured from cows reared in this region. It is imperative to note that initially, no significant amount of radioactive elements was found on water bodies in Fukushima. However, tests conducted later on the sewage systems as well as sea water provided evidence of contamination. Additionally, marine life seems not to have been significantly affected by radioactivity. However, some species of fish were found to be contaminated with trace elements of radioactive elements. Scientists assert that contamination in fish seems to have occurred from trace elements of Cesium, Strontium and Peritoneum found in soils samples from the Miyagi seabed and planktons found in nearby water bodies. The fish ho wever, pose no threat to human life. Radioactive cesium was also found to contaminate forest species, with male flowers from cedar trees returning positive results (JAIF 1 to 3). Numerous tests conducted by Japan Industrial Atomic Forum, JAIF on environmental effects reveal an increase in the level of radiological activity in sea life (JAIF 2). These results are supported by separate tests conducted by IRSN, which indicate that the radioactivity is on its juvenile stage and is likely to increase in the coming years. Thus there is need to have constant tests to verify this alarming trend (IRSN 12). Tests conducted on marine animals such as Japanese mackerel, the Japanese eel fish anchovies and shellfish taken from contaminated areas reveal an increasing level of Iodine 131 as well as Caesium 134 and 137. This however, can be attributed to sustained consumption of contaminated zooplanktons and phytoplankton (IRSN 12, 13). Currently, there is evidence indicating that the Fukushima disa ster led to contamination of the environment with radioactive elements. Latest tests indicate that the level of radioactive materials is 25 times above the standard requirements. This affects human activities, with the agriculture industry suffering the most. Agricultural products such as rice, milk and tea were found to be contaminated with significant amounts of radioactive elements and therefore significantly pose health risks to consumers. Currently, it is impossible to measure the exact impacts on people, animals and plants. However, scientists assert that the long term effects of Fukushima tragedy can be compared to effects of the Chernobyl disaster (Fackler 6). Chernobyl nuclear disaster Despite the fact that the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster occurred 25 years ago, its effects will be felt for years to come. Critics of nuclear programs argue that the social economic as well as political cost incurred from such disasters is not justifiable. Proponents argue that, unlike the Fukus hima nuclear disaster, Chernobyl occurred as a result of human error and could have been avoided. As such, by improving safety standards, nations can share nuclear resources without incurring such costs (Sovacool 141). Nevertheless, Chernobyl disaster has multiple effects on the environment. These are enumerated below. The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster led to irreversible defects on the biosphere, including on human beings, animals as well as on plants. 20 years after Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster, scientists have found incredible evidence linking the recurrence of numerous medical conditions in people living near or around the affected areas to radioactive materials released during the accident. In 2006, extensive studies on the recurrence of thyroid cancer amongst the residents living near Chernobyl traced the condition to radioactive isotopes released after the accident (IAEA 24 to 28). Additionally, these studies concludes that other conditions such as thyroid diseases as well as post traumatic stress are traceable to radionuclides released after the accident (World Information Transfer 3). Recent tests link Chernobyl nuclear disaster to reproductive deficiencies in coniferous plants as well as genetic defects in the somatic and germ cells of animals living in the affected area. While these are considered as long term effects, it is important to note that immediately after the accident, more that 200 workers on duty received â€Å"very high doses of radioactive matter resulting to radiation sickness† (World Information Transfer 21). The effects of Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster on the biosphere are considered secondary. Nuclear scientists argue that the primary effect is widespread surface deposits. For ten days after the accident, the damaged nuclear plant deposited vast amounts of radioactive gases and liquids into the atmosphere. A report conducted by IAEA confirms that isotopes of iodine 131, Caesium 137, Stronium 90, Americium241 as well as Plutonium as some of the major radionuclides deposited into the environment. These isotopes were released into an area measuring about 200 000 Sq Kms, spreading over three countries namely Belarussia, Russia and Ukraine. Some of these isotopes did not however, have long lasting effects on the environment as they decayed quickly as a result of their short-half lives. However, radioactive elements such as Caesium 137, Stronium 90, and Americium241 remain relatively high. Scientists and environmental experts are concerned that Caesium 137, especially is of considerable long term significance due to the level of toxicity as well as extended half-life (IAEA 21). Surface radionuclides deposits have significant effects on the environment. IAEA reports that within a few months after the accident, plants and animals within 100 kilometer radius interacted with radioactive material. While animals were not directly affected by these deposits, scientists were concerned about the long term effects of radionuc lides contamination in plants. These fears were confirmed when tests conducted on plants for caesium137 and Caesium 134 returned positive results. The occurrence of Radioactive Iodine 131 was however, found to diminish because of its short-half life. Consumption of contaminated fodder by livestock led to subsequent contamination of dairy products, and was attributed to occurrence of thyroid cancer young among children in Belarussia, Russia and Ukraine (IAEA 21 to 24). Scientists asserted that contamination of agricultural products occurred as a result of direct contact with contaminated water and air. Further tests revealed that much of the radioactive contamination in plants emanates from uptake of radioactive substances found in contaminated soils. It is evident that contaminated soils considerably impacted plants. Forests and wildlife were similarly affected as result of uptake of radionuclides from soils. Radiocaesium was prevalently found to exist within forest ecosystems, with radioactive levels remaining relatively constant for the last 20 years. Cedar trees, wild mushrooms as well as wild berries were found to be rich in Caesium 137. High levels of Caesium 137are not expected to reduce in the coming decades. This implies that for along time, forests will continue to dominate radiological exposure in large parts of Belarussia, Ukraine and Russia. Other than wild plants, wild animals have been contaminated with radiocaesium. Some species of wild animals such as reindeers were found to take in radiocaesium from lichens. Reindeer is significant beef supplement to people living around Chernobyl. As such, consumption of meat from reindeer exposes consumers to risks associated with radioactive material (IAEA 25). Immediately after the accident, there were concerns that the water system around Chernobyl would significantly be contaminated. Preliminary tests conducted on primary water sources such as lakes and rivers showed that there were significant amounts o f Iodine 131. Concerns over the safety of drinking water were confirmed when samples taken from Kyiv Reservoir indicated presence of this radionuclide. However, subsequent tests revealed diminishing levels of radioactivity attributed to quick natural decay and the absorption by bedrock and river bed soils. This however posed a new challenge to aquatic life, which depends on phytoplankton and zooplanktons. Aquatic plants readily absorb these radionuclides. As such, fishes, which largely consume these plants, were in danger of contamination. Tests conducted on fish revealed that the levels of contamination increased with time. Scientist attributed this to sustained consumption of plants contaminated with Stronium, Caesium and Iodine. While the accumulation of radioiodine reduced drastically due to decay, radiocaesium on the other hand consistently remained high. The effects of radiocaesium were also evident in fish species found in lakes as far as Germany. However, strontium did not p ose any threat to human beings since, unlike other radioactive elements it accumulates in non-edible parts of an organism such as bones. Scientist have noted with concern that for decades to come, water systems in Belarussia, Ukraine and Russia will significantly expose people to caesium 137 (IAEA 25, 26). Radionuclides were deposited into the air immediately after the accident. However, this did not pose any significant threat to human beings. Radionuclides tended to be concentrated in open spaces such as public parks, open lawns and public squares. The combination of wind, human activity, air moisture and rain helped to quickly dissipate radioactive material into soils and plants. Additionally, since contaminated air threatened the lives of people immediately after the accident, nearby towns were evacuated in time. Therefore, despite the fact that contaminated air posed a significant threat to people, a series of actions ensured that it did not provide radiological exposure (IAEA 22). Possible remediation It is evident that nuclear disasters such as the Chernobyl and Fukushima have serious environmental effects, which further affect human and animal life. It is therefore important to enumerate, albeit briefly, suggested remediation activities aimed at mitigating these effects. Decontamination of affected areas is one of the primary remediation exercises. Even though plagued by political and logistical problems, decontamination of affected areas realized notable success after the Chernobyl accident. Scientists suggested that pastures from affected areas be omitted from cattle diet. This effort however, was an act in futility as it was implemented too late as contaminated fodder had already been fed to cows. The biggest threat occurred as a result of contaminated soils. As such, scientists involved in Chernobyl and Fukushima disaster management suggested treatment of contaminated soils. The sustainability of such treatment programs has however been affected by economic constraints, especially in economically weak Belarussia. In addition there are restrictions on hunting, farming and harvesting of wild fruits from affected areas. This is aimed at reducing exposure to contaminated materials (IAEA 28; JAIF 2). Conclusion The need to explore alternative and environmentally friendly sources of power has led to the exploration of the possibility of utilizing radioactive material as a source of sustainable energy. This is aimed at meeting the ever increasing demand for renewable energy and has resulted to the development of various nuclear programs, especially by developed countries. It is imperative to note that nuclear power offers sustainable and cost effective sources of energy that is likely to spur global economic growth. However, in its inception stage, scientist noted that nuclear programs had inherent risks to the environment as well as to human beings and animals. The initial risks and challenges seemed to have been the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially due to the fact that the demand for such weapons is not necessarily necessitated by a country’s nuclear capacity. In light of the recent events, the risk of proliferation seems to be overtaken by the dangers of nuclear accidents. There are several nuclear accidents that have occurred since the rise of the atomic age. Two of these, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters have had serious long term environmental as well as health related effects. Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters occurred as a result human errors and natural calamities respectively. Regardless of the previously accrued benefits, the after effects of these two disasters are almost similar and surpass any gains made before the accidents occurred. The sustainability of such projects is thus highly questionable. According to Fackler (6) there is need to evaluate the real cost of nuclear as a source of energy. Fackler argues that proponents of nuclear programs ought to look beyond th e economic benefits accrued from such programs to effects on the environment, on people’s health and socioeconomic consequences that arise as a result of nuclear accidents. Since majority of these consequences are irreversible, it is necessary to abandon nuclear programs, and explore less risky energy sources. Fackler’s assertion seems to be supported by IAEA findings on the effects of Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which stipulate that people, animals and plants suffered irreversible health and genetic alterations as a result of exposure to radioactive materials. Additionally, IAEA reports notable reproductive deficiencies in some species of plants as a result to the Chernobyl accident. These effects have occurred irrespective of extensive remediation efforts. This further leads to questions on the impacts of future generations, especially since exposure to radioactive material resulted to genetic alterations. Additionally, IAEA confirms that some of the radionuclides su ch as Caesium remain radioactive for long periods, and thus environmental effects will be felt for many years to come. Moreover, questions on possible effects on the environment and people as a result of extended exposure arise. These questions are further compounded by scientific findings which state that the extent of radioactive exposure is almost impossible to ascertain. Therefore, it is possible to ascertain that the management of nuclear programs is shrouded in uncertainties, speculation and lack of creditworthy data on the social economic as well as environment implications. Due to the evidence enumerated in this paper, it is therefore necessary to conclude that there is an urgent need to rethink and restrategize the management of nuclear programs. Works Cited Baker, Peter and David Hoel. â€Å"Meta-Analysis of Standardized Incidence and Mortality Rates of Childhood Leukemia in Proximity to Nuclear Facilities†. European Journal of Cancer Care 16.4(2007) 355–363. Print Fackler, Martin. â€Å"Large Zone near Japanese Reactors to be off Limits†. The New York Times. August 21, 2011. Web.. Fuhrmann, Matthew. â€Å"Spreading Temptation Proliferation and Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreements† International Security. 2009. Web. GreenFacts. Scientific Facts on the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident. 2008. Web. IAEA. Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. 2008. Web.. International Energy Agency. Energy Statistics. 2007. Web.. IRSN. Impact on the Marine Environment of Radioactive Releases Following the Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Daiichi. 2011. Web.. JAIF. Environmental Impact Caused by the Nuclear Power Accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. 2011. Web.. Paschoa, Salles. The Environmental Effects of Nuclear Power Production. n.d. Web. Sagan, Scott. â€Å"Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb,† International Security, 21.3 (1997) 58. Print Sovac ool, Benjamin. â€Å"Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy†. World Scientific. 3.2 (2011) 141. Print World Information Transfer. â€Å"Nuclear Power: History Revisited.† Summer-Fall, 2011. Web. Yoshimoto, Yuhei. â€Å"Research on Potential Radiation Risks in areas With Nuclear Power Plants in Japan: Leukaemia and Malignant Lymphoma Mortality between 1972 and 1997 in 100 Selected Municipalities†. Journal of Radiological Protection 24.4 (2004). 343–368. Print This research paper on Environmental Impacts of Nuclear Material was written and submitted by user Catherine W. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Manco Incas Rebellion (1536-1544)

Manco Incas Rebellion (1536-1544) Manco Inca’s Rebellion (1535-1544): Manco Inca (1516-1544) was one of the last native lords of the Inca Empire. Installed by the Spanish as a puppet leader, Manco grew increasingly angry at his masters, who treated him with disrespect and who were plundering his empire and enslaving his people. In 1536 he escaped from the Spanish and spent the next nine years on the run, organizing a guerrilla resistance against the hated Spanish until his assassination in 1544. Ascent of Manco Inca: In 1532, the Inca Empire was picking up the pieces after a long civil war between brothers Atahualpa and Huscar. Just as Atahualpa had defeated Huscar, a far greater threat approached: 160 Spanish conquistadors under Francisco Pizarro. Pizarro and his men captured Atahualpa at Cajamarca and held him for ransom. Atahualpa paid, but the Spanish killed him anyway in 1533. The Spaniards installed a puppet Emperor, Tupac Huallpa, upon Atahualpas death, but he died shortly thereafter of smallpox. The Spanish selected Manco, a brother of Atahualpa and Huscar, to be the next Inca: he was only about 19 years old. A supporter of the defeated Huscar, Manco was lucky to have survived the civil war and was thrilled to be offered the position of Emperor. Abuses of Manco: Manco soon found that serving as puppet emperor did not suit him. The Spaniards who controlled him were coarse, greedy men who did not respect Manco or any other native. Although nominally in charge of his people, he had little real power and mostly performed traditional ceremonial and religious duties. In private, the Spanish tortured him to make him reveal the location of more gold and silver (the invaders had already carted off a fortune in precious metals but wanted more). His worst tormentors were Juan and Gonzalo Pizarro: Gonzalo even forcibly stole Mancos noble Inca wife. Manco tried to escape in October of 1535, but was recaptured and jailed. Escape and Rebellion: In April of 1836 Manco tried to escape again. This time he had a clever plan: he told the Spanish that he had to go officiate at a religious ceremony in the Yucay Valley and that he would bring back a golden statue he knew of: the promise of gold worked like a charm, as he had known it would. Manco escaped and summoned his generals and called for his people to take up arms. In May, Manco led a massive army of 100,000 native warriors in a siege of Cuzco. The Spanish there only survived by capturing and occupying the nearby fortress of Sachsaywaman. The situation turned into a stalemate until a force of Spanish conquistadors under Diego de Almagro returned from an expedition to Chile and dispersed Mancos forces. Biding His Time: Manco and his officers retreated to the town of Vitcos in the remote Vilcabamba Valley. There, they fought off en expedition led by Rodrigo Orgoà ±ez. Meanwhile, a civil war had broken out in Peru between the supporters of Francisco Pizarro and those of Diego de Almagro. Manco waited patiently in Vitcos while his enemies made war on one another. The civil wars would eventually claim the lives of both Francisco Pizarro and Diego de Almagro; Manco must have been pleased to see his old foes brought down. Manco’s Second Rebellion: In 1537, Manco decided it was time to strike again. Last time, he had led a massive army in the field and had been defeated: he decided to try new tactics this time. He sent out word to local chieftains to attack and wipe out any isolated Spanish garrisons or expeditions. The strategy worked, to an extent: some Spanish individuals and small groups were killed and travel through Peru became very unsafe. The Spanish responded by sending another expedition after Manco and traveling in larger groups. The natives did not succeed, however, in securing an important military victory or driving the hated Spanish out. The Spanish were furious with Manco: Francisco Pizarro even ordered the execution of Cura Ocllo, Manco’s wife and a captive of the Spanish, in 1539. By 1541 Manco was once again in hiding in the Vilcabamba Valley. Death of Manco Inca: In 1541 the civil wars broke out again as supporters of Diego de Almagros son assassinated Francisco Pizarro in Lima. For a few months, Almagro the Younger ruled in Peru, but he was defeated and executed. Seven of Almagros Spanish supporters, knowing they would be executed for treason if captured, showed up in Vilcabamba asking for sanctuary. Manco granted them entrance: he put them to work training his soldiers in horsemanship and the use of Spanish armor and weapons. These treacherous men murdered Manco sometime in mid-1544. They were hoping to gain a pardon for their support of Almagro, but instead they were quickly tracked down and killed by some of Mancos soldiers. Legacy of Manco’s Rebellions: Mancos first rebellion of 1536 represented the last, best chance the native Andeans had of kicking out the hated Spanish. When Manco failed to capture Cuzco and annihilate the Spanish presence in the highlands, any hope of ever returning to native Inca rule collapsed. Had he captured Cuzco, he could have tried to keep the Spanish to the coastal regions and maybe force them to negotiate. His second rebellion was well thought-out and did enjoy some success, but the guerrilla campaign did not last long enough to do any lasting damage. When he was treacherously murdered, Manco was training his troops and officers in Spanish methods of warfare: this suggests the intriguing possibility that had he survived he many have eventually used the Spanish weapons against them. With his death, however, this training was abandoned and future rogue Inca leaders such as Tà ºpac Amaru did not have Mancos vision. Manco was a good leader of his people. He initially sold out to become ruler, but swiftly saw that he had made a grave mistake. Once he escaped and rebelled, he did not look back and dedicated himself to removing the hated Spanish from his homeland. Source: Hemming, John. The Conquest of the Inca London: Pan Books, 2004 (original 1970).

The Rule of Six of Film Editing Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The Rule of Six of Film Editing - Essay Example I believe that what Murch quintessentially intends to say in The Rule of Six is that while working in the cutting room, and editor ought to pay heed to one’s heart and intuition and opt for a cut that one finds most compelling. Many times while being in the cutting room, an editor may come across situations where one may need to execute a compromise between emotion and continuity. Technicalities and continuity do matter; yet, the mastery of an editor’s skill actually depends on one’s ability to opt for a cut that accentuates the emotive content and force of a particular scene. For in the end what the audience tend to remember is the emotional force that a particular scene had over them, the extent to which a scene succeeded in playing with their sense of fear and hope, and the power with which it kept them engaged and riveted. If a cut succeeds in honoring these expectations, it is perfect even if it slips a little on the continuity scale. Considering the fact that young editors do come across situations when they feel that their inner conviction invokes them to compromise some fundamental aspects of editing, Murch has been benign to lay down the criteria for dealing with such dilemmas. He has given a sequential list of criteria in a decreasing order of importance and the sequence in which they could be compromised to come out with an emotionally and rhythmically correct cut. Coming out with a seamless edit is no doubt an art. However, the primary function of editing is to respect the importance of emotion, story and rhythm, which are the essence of a scene. Continuity is really important, but, it stands subservient to the actual emotional flavor of a  scene.     Ã‚  Ã‚