Biography of Primo Levi: Vanadium

Biography of Primo Levi: Vanadium ‘Vanadium’ – The Periodic Table (Primo Levi) Annerita Ng Primo Levi was a Jewish chemist and author born in Italy. The majority of his writings revolved around his experience surviving the Holocaust of World War II, some with a heavy subtext of chemistry. One of his books entitled ‘The Periodic Table’ is a memoir of his life collated in 21 chapters, each of which is given the title of an element that is somehow woven intrinsically into the story. In chapter 20, called ‘Vanadium’, Levi does a seamless job of tying in the chemistry he learns with past personal experiences that plague his mind. In 1941, after Italy had entered World War II as an ally of Germany, Levi accepted a job at a mine in which he was to extract nickel to aid the production of weaponry for the Germans2. He then worked in Milan with a former acquaintance from university, before returning to Turin in 1943. He became involved with an Italian partisan group when he returned to Turin after Italy became occupied by the Germans. Levi was captured and sent to a transit camp before being deported to a Monowitz-Auschwitz camp. The Buna Werke plant nearby the camp, run by German chemical industry corporation I.G. Farben, focused on the production of synthetic rubber and made use of slave labour from the concentration camp. Thanks to his professional abilities, Levi secured a position in the Buna Werke laboratory, which ultimately led to his survival in the camp. He was freed in 1945, eleven months after he was deported to the concentration camp. He began working different chemistry related jobs not long after his liberation and eventually obtained a job in a paint business as a chemist and technical director2. It was in this job that Levi based his short story ‘Vanadium’ from his book ‘The Periodic Table’. While working for the company a shipment of resin for varnishes is received, which Levi then learns does not dry properly when mixed with the required chemical agent. He then discovered that the supplier is a descendant of I.G. Farben, who operated the Buna Werke plant during his stay at the concentration camp. After a series of letters sent to their representative, Levi realizes that the representative, Doctor Muller, was an acquaintance of his from the Buna Werke laboratory. This connection was set off after a misspelling of the name of a chemical, the same word which Muller often mispronounced while working at the Burna Werke laboratory. Memories of his experience working in the laboratory were triggered. Levi explains that Muller, along with other men, would often visit the laboratory he worked at to give himself and two other prisoners strict instructions. Muller only spoke to him a few times, but during one of those times he had continuously mispronounced ‘naphthenate’ as ‘naptenate’. Levi also remembered Muller giving him permission to shave twice a week (as opposed to the rule of prisoners shaving once a week), and also provided him with a pair of leather shoes. He also noted that Muller was rather ignorant to the events occurring at the concentration camp nearby the laboratory, as he asked Levi why he looked so anxious working at the factory. As Levi sent letters to Muller regarding the flawed shipment, he had also sent him a private letter in order to confirm if he was the same Muller he met at the Buna Werke Laboratory. While he waited for Muller’s confirmation he begun testing the instructions given to him in order to cure the shipment of resin. Levi had been directed by Muller to add 0.1% of vanadium naphthenate to the resin in order for it to dry properly. Vanadium naphthenate acts to accelerate the drying process of the resin3,4. It is able to protect the inner material and keep it undamaged from oxidation by forming oxide layers. This occurs as the hydrocarbon ring of the vanadium compound reacts with the oxygen in air3. He discovered that the Italian version of the vanadium naphthenate was not as effective as the German kind, and accordingly he requested for a shipment of German naphthenate. Muller had replied to his private letter a while later, confirming that he was the ‘Muller of Buna’ and requested to meet with Levi in order to rise above the past between them. Levi, however, was not so keen for this meeting, stating that he had no past that needed resolving. He avoided this topic altogether and, instead, Muller spoke of their ‘friendship’ as they worked together in the laboratory of the camp. Levi recalled no friendship between the two men, but realised that the other had saved his life by selecting him in to work at the laboratory. He assumed that Muller had perchance fabricated a convenient past for himself. In a sense, the variable effectiveness of the Italian and German versions of the vanadium naphthenate can be associated with the different versions of Levi and Muller’s memories of the camp. A few days later, Levi had received a letter from the supplier apologising for the inconvenience he, and the company he worked for, had suffered. However from this disruption they had realised it would be more appropriate and convenient if they themselves integrated the vanadium naphthenate into the resin before delivering them. Here, we see the success that prevails from the deductive processes of chemists and the elements of small-scale industrial chemistry. After the problem was encountered with the shipment of resin, Levi’s immediate action was to contact the source/supplier. The buyer-supplier connection is necessary for the industrial chemistry department, especially in when issues arise. These connections can be somewhat difficult when the buyer and supplier are located for apart, such as in Levi’s case. He was then given instructions in which he would test the effect of a required chemical and observe and confirm if it was the solution to the problem. In other words, trials were to be conducted to narrow down the cause of the issue. In this instance, materials monitoring is helpful for quality control and to review the materials and the processes they endure. In Levi’s case, a positive outcome was reached as the supplying company recognised a more convenient route to take with th eir resin product in order to avoid future issues. At first, Levi refused to forgive Muller despite his high respect for the man. He could not fathom the idea of meeting Muller with open arms after all he had to suffer through. He did not hate Muller, rather he harboured an abhorrence toward the Germans in general, and assumed Muller a substitute for those who harmed the Jews. But after further contemplation he became sympathetic to Muller’s plight as he tried to clear his conscience of any wrong doing. Levi then began drafting a letter to thank Muller for selecting him and even mentioned a readiness for forgiveness. On the same evening he received a phone call from Muller asking to meet with him in the near future. The language barrier helps prevent him from making his feelings of distaste known. He carelessly agreed to the meeting as he was caught off guard. However, the meeting would not occur as only a week later Levi discovered that Muller has passed away unexpectedly. This chapter provided an insight of the relationship between his chemical career and other aspects of his life, such as his writing career. Chemistry seems to be quintessential to his life. Levi finds a brilliant way of linking his chemical profession to his personal and social experiences, showing that he was deeply invested in his profession. Even in the Auschwitz concentration camp, he couldn’t escape it, and it most probably saved his life. He continued working as a chemical professional after he was freed from Auschwitz despite the obvious psychological trauma he suffered. From this chapter of his book, it is seen that Levi correlates the characteristics of vanadium naphthenate to the important features of his story. And although this unique chapter is mainly about his personal experience and his reflection on the injustices handed to him, it does contain factual information on the chemical it is named after. Levi also provides an understanding of the logical manner in which chemists must think within the industry and the elements involved in the processes of industrial chemistry – proving how communication is key within the world of industrial chemistry. Without a doubt Levi has a very powerful way with words, intertwining his personal tale with scientific principles. References Levi, P., (1986). Vanadium. In: The Periodic Table, 1st ed. Abacus: Sphere Books Ltd, pp.211 223. Patruno, N. (n.d.). Primo Levi: Surviving the Haulocast. [online] Bryn Mawr College. Available at: http://www.brynmawr.edu/italian/holoc/essays/surv_hol.htm [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014]. Chemical Land 21, (n.d.). Vanadyl Naphthenate. [online] Available at: http://www.chemicalland21.com/industrialchem/organic/VANADYL NAPHTHENATE.htm [Accessed 15 Dec. 2014]. Kemi Swedish Chemicals Agency, (n.d.). Metal Naphthenates. [online] Available at: http://apps.kemi.se/flodessok/floden/kemamne_eng/metallnaftenater_eng.htm [Accessed 15 Dec. 2014]. Sumatran Orangutan: Threats and Rehabilitation Strategies Sumatran Orangutan: Threats and Rehabilitation Strategies The Sumatran orangutan is widely considered as the most threatened species of great ape Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust 2006. It is estimated that there are approximately 6,500 individuals remaining in Sumatra (Wich et al, 2008), and the species is listed as Critically Endangered under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (Singleton et al, 2008). This is due not only to the small remaining population, but to the fact that the population has declined by over 80% in the last 75 years (3 generations) (Wich et al, 2008). The Sumatran orangutan is endemic to Sumatra (considered a separate species from the Bornean orangutan (Mittermeier et al, 2009)), with its range restricted to a small area of fragmented habitat in the North of the island. Historically, the species had a much larger range across Sumatra, but the majority of the population is now constrained to the province of Aceh (Singleton et al, 2008). This condensed population means that we can expec t the population to show more intense competition within the species for food and resources, causing an increase in mortality over time (Marshall et al, 2009). The orangutan is an arboreal species, it is highly adapted to spend all of its time above the ground, and primarily inhabits lowland tropical forest and peat-swamp forest ecosystems (DWCT, 2006). These traits have left them extremely vulnerable to habitat destruction, the major threat to orangutans in Sumatra. Heavy logging of the orangutans natural habitat means that only less suitable habitat remains for them (Wich et al 2008). In addition, the majority of the orangutan population in Sumatra were found outside of protected areas, and many within potential logging areas (Singleton et al, 2008). It is clear that the Sumatran orangutan is under severe pressure, and many threats need to be addressed in order to attempt to restore the population. Threats Deforestation and fragmentation Both legal and illegal logging are a major threat to the Sumatran orangutan. The species main habitat, primary lowland forest, has been devastated in the last 30 years due to large scale forest conversion to agricultural land and oil palm plantations (Singleton et al, 2008). One study between 1990 and 2000 recorded a 13% loss of orangutan habitat forest (Gaveau et al, 2007). Another study by van Schaik et al (2001) found that during the late 1990s habitat supporting 100 orangutans was lost each year in the Leuser Ecosystem in Sumatra. This habitat loss was largely due to legal logging concessions from the Indonesian government for oil palm conversion (van Schaik et al, 2001). The orangutans habitat of lowland forest has been targeted due to the fact that it is easily and cheaply accessible for logging (Campbell-Smith et al, 2011). The forest is being destroyed in order to provide hardwood to developed nations, providing income to boost Indonesias economy, as well as to clear land for agricultural conversion and expanding human populations (DWCT, 2006). Within the last decade the scale of logging in Sumatra has continued to expand. This was partly due to the surge in demand for timber since the 2004 tsunami (Singleton et al, 2008), as well as a peace agreement in the Aceh province. A moratorium on logging during the conflict meant a lower rate of forest loss, however a peace accord in 2005 led to a lift of the moratorium and re-issuing of logging permits in Aceh (Singleton et al, 2008). In addition, the history of political unrest in the province has greatly impacted past conservation efforts (Marshall et al, 2009). This recorded habitat loss is the main contributor to the species declining population. orangutans are particularly vulnerable due to the fact that they are an arboreal species. They spend the majority of their lives in the canopy to avoid the threat of tigers, meaning the species is restricted to areas untouched by deforestation. However, the spread of human settlements and development of new road systems has caused severe fragmentation of their remaining habitat. In addition, a proposal for the Ladia Galaska road network in Aceh has been put forward, and if allowed will quickly fragment the last remnants of habitat (Singleton et al, 2008). The remaining forest within the orangutans range cannot support its prior ecosystems, and further deforestation and fragmentation could lead to multiple extinctions. Indonesia has converted over 3 million hectares of land to oil palm plantations, with plans to convert a further 4 million (Brown and Jacobson, 2005). However areas of oil palm monoculture only supports 20% of its previous diversity (Marchal and Hill, 2009). Even small scale selective logging can reduce local orangutan densities by as much as 60% (Rao and van Schaik, 1997), which shows how sensitive the species are to the destruction of habitat. The threats to orangutans from deforestation are made greater by the fact that the Indonesian government supports development (orangutan National Action Plan, 2007), and are therefore willing to issue large numbers of logging permits. Furthermore, the decentralisation of forest management in 2001 has aided the rise in forest destruction, as it means that regional land use plans are made without any though for conservation (The Ministry of Forestry, 2009). The increase in human population also increases pressure, as greater resource degradation occurs to meet an ever increasing demand for timber and agricultural land. A paper by Robertson and van Schaik (2001) suggests that ultimate causal factor of deforestation is corruption, as well as feeble compliance with legislation and poor law enforcement. Corrupti on is the most difficult threat to overcome, but law enforcement and compliance need to be improved in order to have a chance of protecting the remaining orangutan population. Other threats As well as being severely threatened by habitat destruction, orangutans are also in high demand for the pet trade across Indonesia. The central demand is for infant orangutans, considered as good pets as they do not reach full size until the age of 7, and are known for their trait of human imitation. Currently around 200-500 infants are taken from the wild for the pet trade each year in Kalimantan (Nijman, 2005). No data is available for the Sumatran orangutan, but demand for pets is high in both Borneo and Sumatra, and the number of infants being removed from the wild is unsustainable. Wild orangutans are also threatened by their conflict with humans, and they are at times killed as pests. They are forced to encroach upon agricultural land as a result of habitat destruction, but are considered pests by farmers and often killed when found raiding crops at forest edges. In a study interviewing farmers in northern Sumatra, 28% of those interviewed feared orangutans. They also on averag e believed orangutans to be the third most frequent, and the fourth most destructive pest (Campbell-Smith et al, 2010). This shows that a high proportion of orangutans are being forced to raid crops due to destruction of habitat and food sources, but also that the human-orangutan conflict may not easily be reconciled as it is largely driven by fear. Finally, the current small nature of the remaining orangutan population means it is highly vulnerable to stochastic events such as natural disasters, random genetic fluctuations and disease outbreak (Caughley, 1994). The species relatively slow reproductive rate (25 years per generation) and the ongoing vulnerability to habitat reduction means it is at constant risk of extinction. Past and current recovery strategies Rehabilitation centres During the 1970s the Indonesian government began to establish reserves for orangutans, which are now seen across Sumatra. The reserves act as rehabilitation centres where orphans are taught how to live in the wild and then returned, but also as sanctuaries for individuals unable to be reintroduced. Individuals found in logging areas, as well as orphans and orangutans confiscated by the forestry department, are moved to these sanctuaries (DWCT, 2006). It is estimates that around 63-97% of intakes by orangutan centres are under 7 years old (Russon, 2009). The orangutans are treated medically until their health is regained, as they are often in bad condition. For example many have gunshot and machete wounds, scars from tight chains, and internal damage, as well as behavioural and psychological damage as a result of prolonged isolation, abuse, and abnormal associations with humans (Russon, 2009). In addition many orangutans arrive carrying human diseases such as Tuberculosis, as well as significantly high parasite loads (Russon, 2009) after living in close proximity with humans. Once treated, the orangutans are taught ecological and social skills, and gradually weaned from human contact in order for them to be able to live independently in the wild once released (Beck et al, 2007). When the rehabilitation centres were initially established, uncertainty over orangutan numbers meant that rehabilitation programmes concentrated on releasing individuals into areas with existing wild populations to supplement those that were too small (Russon, 2009). Between 1973 and 2000, 218 orangutans were released at Bohorok in Gunung Leuser National Park, Sumatra, to supplement the rapidly declining population. The Sumatran orangutan Conservation Programme (SOCP) is one of the orangutan rehabilitation centres in Sumatra, but it also concentrates on other aspects of orangutan conservation. The SOCP rehabilitation centre and quarantine site is in the Medan region, and individuals are released in Bukit Tigapuluh National Park. Over ten years, 190 orangutans have been through quarantine, with 125 individuals released into Bukit Tigapuluh, and 3 wild births by reintroduced females (DWCT, 2006). In addition the programme is helping to improve law enforcement through providing facilities for confiscated or unwanted orangutans. The availability of sanctuaries means that illegally kept individuals are more readily reported (DWCT, 2006). A mobile education unit from SOCP is used as an educational tool to teach conservation and the importance of orangutan tolerance, particularly in human-orangutan conflict areas. This provides a vital part of the orangutan conservation effort, as building understanding within local communities will help to reduce threats. Additionally, the programmes links with the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust means they also have access to the latest research in orangutan medicine, husbandry and captive care (DWCT, 2006). Protected Areas There are many protected areas across Sumatra, however illegal logging still occurs within the majority of them. The Leuser Ecosystem Conservation area, established in 1998, is considered a conservation stronghold for orangutan populations (Singleton et al, 2008). It is a 2.6 million hectare area consisting of two National parks and containing around 5,800 (over 85%) of the remaining Sumatran orangutan population (Mittermeier et al 2009). It is the only conservation area within Sumatra with viable populations of the Sumatran orangutan, Sumatran tiger, Sumatran Rhinoceros and the Sumatran elephant. This shows that the Leuser Ecosystem Conservation area is highly important in the conservation and protection of the Sumatran orangutan. However, the national park is predominantly a mountainous region, which is highly unsuitable for the lowland orangutan species. This means that most of the orangutan population is found outside of park boundaries, leaving them even more vulnerable to habit at destruction. It is estimated that only around 30% of the orangutan population in Sumatra are found within park boundaries (Mittermeier et al, 2009), causing more problems and difficulties for their conservation. Legislation The Sumatran orangutan was listed on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) in 1975 (DWCT, 2006). This means that no trade is allowed in live orangutans or orangutan products. The ban was put in place due to the expanding pet trade in Indonesia, and by 1980 over 30,000 orangutans had been killed as result of this trade across Sumatra and Borneo (DWCT, 2006). In addition the species has been protected under Indonesian domestic law (Singleton et al, 2008). Act no.5, which was made law in 1990, legally protects the orangutan from hunting throughout its range. The Act also aims to protect environmental support structures and preserve biodiversity in Indonesia. However, a ban on hunting is extremely difficult to enforce, and current law enforcement of legislation appears to be very weak. Foreign support Many foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have invested an interest in the future survival of the Sumatran orangutan. For example, the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust based in Jersey joined the effort to conserve Sumatran orangutans in 1968. Durrell has contributed greatly to the survival of the species, breeding 7 babies in Jersey for the international Sumatran orangutan breeding programme (DWCT, 2006). The trust also helps by sharing information with orangutan rehabilitation centres, as well as sending experts to the field in Sumatra to help in the rehabilitation process. Some governmental support for the protection of the Sumatran orangutan has also been shown. Through the United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD), the Norwegian government pledged US$1 billion to Indonesia to reduce deforestation rates (Butler et al, 2009). Success of species recovery to date The Sumatran orangutan has been listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN since 2000 when it was first categorised (Singleton et al, 2008). The species data was re-examined in both 2007 and 2008, and in both cases it was found to still be Critically Endangered (Singleton et al, 2008). The population in Sumatra has been decreasing since the 1900s, with the most recent decline from 7,300 individuals in 2004 (Singleton et al, 2004), to around 6,500 in 2008 (Wich et al, 2008). It appears that, despite efforts to restore orangutan populations over the last 40 years, the species recovery has been unsuccessful to date. The predominant reason behind the continued decline of orangutan populations is the sustained level of deforestation, allowed by legal logging permits, illegal logging, poor law enforcement and ultimately corruption. Legislation is ineffective and reserves are not sufficiently policed, allowing commercial forestry to continue to occur even within protected areas. The rate o f illegal logging to legal logging is 4:1 (DWCT, 2006), meaning that without drastic improvements in law enforcement orangutans will remain at constant threat of extinction. Furthermore, despite the illegalisation of trade in orangutans, the pet trade for the species is still booming throughout Indonesia. Although the forestry department are responsible for confiscating many illegally owned orangutans for reintroduction, a huge proportion of individuals remain in human possession. The current level of protection for orangutans is not enough to combat the threats to the species. The most successful recovery attempt has been through the rehabilitation centres, but even they have a limited capacity. The rehabilitation process is only able to reintroduce a relatively small number of individuals, with one centre returning 125 orangutans to the wild over a ten years period. Over the same 10 year period only 3 wild births from ex-captive mothers occurred, and a high infant mortality was found at many release sites (Russon, 2009). Several observations of released orangutans at Bohorok release site showed individuals returning ill, underweight or wounded by wild counterparts (Dellatore, 2009). It is clear that there are still some problems with the rehabilitation and reintroduction process, and room to expand projects to a larger scale. However, it is also evident that these projects are the most successful aspect of the species recovery to date. The centres carry out highly important medical and genetic screening of individuals. orangutans are susceptible to human diseases, and the risk of spreading disease is great, so medical screenings help prevent disease from entering wild populations. Genetic screening is also highly valuable, as it helps monitor genetic diversity and maintain a healthy population. Rehabilitation centres also play an important role in orangutan welfare, allowing the confiscation of poorly kept individuals and providing safe places to go (Russon, 2009). In this aspect, they are an important part of the limited law enforcement available. Finally, the centres provide vital infrastructure and logistical support in the translocation of wild orangutans away from deforested areas (Beck et al, 2007). Recommendations for future management practices It is estimated that if the current rate of orangutan decline is sustained, we could see a further 50% loss of the population within ten years (Mittermeier et al, 2009). In order to ensure the Sumatran orangutans future, drastic action needs to be taken. Conservation of the species relies on immediate improvement of forest and wildlife laws, an increase in consideration for biodiversity in land use planning, and greater law enforcement effectiveness. The implementation of patrols to prevent illegal activity is vital as the first step to stopping illegal logging (Mittermeier et al 2009). In order to do this regular funding is required to put operations in place, and a forum for monitoring the enforcement of current legislation needs to be established. It is also important to implement anti-hunting patrols, as even very low hunting levels have strong deleterious effects (1% annual hunting rate sustainable) (Marshall et al, 2009). Patrols will also stem some of the supply to the pet trade, and attempt to reduce levels of illegal logging. In addition it is advised to temporarily halt legal logging and forest conversion, as well as road development plans (Mittermeier et al, 2009) in order to establish a more viable orangutan population. However, it is unlikely that the Indonesian government would halt development plans as it is essential for the countrys economic growth. A final step in the improvement of law enforcement would be the establishment of more patrols to confiscate illegally owned and poorly kept individuals to be taken to rehabilitation centres. This means that it is also vital to ensure the future expansion of rehabilitation centres across Sumatra. It is important to build capacity within current centres, as well as establishing new release sites across the island to restore populations in areas outside the Aceh province. Funding and volunteers would be required to expand the reintroduction projects across Sumatra. The future of orangutans also relies on the provision of protected areas and reserves with strict controls to prevent illegal activity from still occurring. Again, this would involve the supply of regular reserve patrols and stringent regulation. National park perimeters should also be increased to enhance the conservation areas. It is important to include large areas of forest below 1000 metres above sea level within the protected areas (Singleton et al, 2008), as this is the orangutans primary habitat. Habitat restoration is also needed within the protected areas in order to make it suitable for orangutan reintroduction. In addition, the re-establishment of habitat corridors is greatly needed (Robertson and van Schaik, 2001) to improve genetic flow between fragmented populations. Improving habitat connectivity will increase genetic diversity and therefore make the species more adaptable to its constantly changing environment. The conversion of any remaining orangutan habitat to oth er uses should be strictly prohibited immediately, as only a very small fraction remains. In order to do this, alternative livelihoods will need to be provided to many local communities which may have relied on the land. This should be done by employing locals in orangutan conservation projects, helping with rehabilitation, habitat restoration and law enforcement. Not only will this provide an income for communities, it will provide an economic incentive to protect orangutans, and may potentially start to change local opinion of the species. Building tolerance of the species and changing attitudes towards them is an important part of their conservation. It is important to address the human-orangutan conflict, especially as in the future more orangutans are likely to be living in close proximity to humans. In Batang Serangan in Northern Sumatra, a small group of orangutans were found to live in peaceful co-existence with farmers. The landscape is made up of degraded natural forest, s mallholder farms and oil palm monoculture plantations (Campbell-Smith et al, 2011). Although not an ideal habitat for orangutans, the mixed landscape was still suitable for the small group to live. Once tolerance of the species has grown, it would be possible to begin establishing small populations in these mixed agro-forest systems which occur across Sumatra. The ultimate aim is to create a landscape of primary lowland forest within protected areas, joined by corridors through major agricultural land. With the addition of further release sites, a connected habitat and better law enforcement, it is possible to establish viable populations across the island of Sumatra. Conclusion In order to reduce the current threats to the Sumatran orangutan immediate action needs to be taken. The species critically endangered status and its vulnerability to habitat destruction mean it is at great risk of extinction if further protection measures are not put in place. By following some of the recommendations laid out above, and increasing the level of support for orangutan projects, the species may yet have a future.