Reading JFK's speech about America's goal to reach the moon by the end of the decade struck me as being very strange and made the whole notion of exploring the moon to be very pointless. One paragraph really made me question the utility of putting a man on the moon,
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things -- not because they
are easy; but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure
the best of our energies and skills; because that challenge is one that we're willing to
accept; one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win -- and the others,
too."
Later JFK continues to talk about all the utile uses of satellites to guide ships and track weather systems. Yet the justification for going to the moon is because it is a challenge and a difficult goal to accomplish? There are a number of actions a country can embark upon that are difficult. Because they are difficult does not mean it is necessarily useful to pursue them. This has caused me to question what the purpose of going to the moon was, what positive contributions did going to the moon bring to society that could not have been achieved by increasing funding for better satellites. Specifically, what use did going to the moon have? I sincerely question the motives and the outcomes of going to the moon at this point. Maybe later in the reading some questions will be answered.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Random Study Thought
Just thought I would write about some thoughts I have while studying. Reading through chapter 4 of Nuclear Choices about the uses of radiation they briefly mention food irradiation. Still very disturbed that the FDA actually supports the use of food irradiation I decided to look at the numbers. Actually, the picture of the potato sitting out for 8 months prompted me to look at the numbers a little more closely. First, who owns a potato for 8 months? Certainly if you buy a potato I would hope you do so with the intention of eating it sometime within the next 8 months. That personal opinion aside the caption of the picture states the potato had been exposed to 20,000 rads of gamma radiation. After reviewing the chapter about Radioactivity 20,000 rads of gamma radiation seemed like a large number. A quick check reveals that exposure to 400 rems kills 50% of the exposed population. Checking the unit conversions between rads and rems shows that rads and rems are equal in measure if beta or gamma rays are involved. The potato had been exposed to 50 times the amount of radiation that kills humans in a high portion of the population, but does the FDA support these practices? Surprisingly, or maybe not so, the FDA endorses dosages of radiation to irradiate foods of up to 30,000 rems! For meat products the range is between 3,000-7,000 rem to kill disease causes organisms and prevent spoilage. Fresh fruits and vegtables are approved for 1,000 rems to maintain freshness and prevent spoilage. Conviently, the FDA presents its dosage units in kiloGrays (1 Gray = 100 rad/rem). Further reading in the book states that ingesting radioactive products is the worst type of contamination a human can be exposed to. So, I further fail to understand how a piece of fruit exposed to double the radiation that is safe for humans to be exposed to can be claimed by the FDA as a safe use of food irradiation. Is there something in the production process that decreases the radiation effects? Maybe the digestive system? I have no idea. Luckily many states have banned the process. I still do not understand how food irradiation can be safe for humans.
I wasn't sure if this link was in the last post, but here is the FDA article:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/398_rad.html
A little further along in my studying I find the stance of those who oppose nuclear power to be incredibly misguided and uneducated. Three Mile Island symbolized the abrupt end to nuclear power in the United States. As nuclear power is again be pushed by the government as a more efficient energy source that will decrease reliance on fossil fuels, opponents talk about lack of safety controls in nuclear power plants and the dangers they pose to the surrounding community. Most of the time they point to the events of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but rarely can they explain that TMI was caused by faulty valve, a minor problem made worse because of misinterpretation by the plant's operators, or that Chernobyl's disaster was the culmination of operator error, reactor design, and a poorly designed test. As Wolfson points out, these disasters have made reactors safer than they were thirty years ago. In order for new nuclear power plants are erected the public needs to be educated about the safety of nuclear power plants. Too much negative stigma exists within the public. Even though any negative thoughts about nuclear safety aren't particularly rational, they still exist. A wide spread public education program may help to mitigate uneasy feelings about nuclear power.
I wasn't sure if this link was in the last post, but here is the FDA article:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/398_rad.html
A little further along in my studying I find the stance of those who oppose nuclear power to be incredibly misguided and uneducated. Three Mile Island symbolized the abrupt end to nuclear power in the United States. As nuclear power is again be pushed by the government as a more efficient energy source that will decrease reliance on fossil fuels, opponents talk about lack of safety controls in nuclear power plants and the dangers they pose to the surrounding community. Most of the time they point to the events of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but rarely can they explain that TMI was caused by faulty valve, a minor problem made worse because of misinterpretation by the plant's operators, or that Chernobyl's disaster was the culmination of operator error, reactor design, and a poorly designed test. As Wolfson points out, these disasters have made reactors safer than they were thirty years ago. In order for new nuclear power plants are erected the public needs to be educated about the safety of nuclear power plants. Too much negative stigma exists within the public. Even though any negative thoughts about nuclear safety aren't particularly rational, they still exist. A wide spread public education program may help to mitigate uneasy feelings about nuclear power.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Very Disturbing
After finishing the reading about atomic euphoria I am very disturbed by what atomic science was used for and what projects it was proposed to be used for. Reading the articles and looking through the pictures the least disturbing of the collection was the development and possible use of more powerful nuclear weapons. Instead what was most disturbing was the wide held belief that nuclear science will lead to a modern day utopia. Planes and cars powered by small nuclear reactors, limitless energy from nuclear power plants, radiation to cure illnesses, and radiation to ensure the safety of the food supply. A lot of the reading focused on the lengths taken to create such a nuclear utopia.
During the years when the public and scientists widely believed nuclear science could provide an answer to nearly all of the nation/planet's problems there was a blatant disregard for the environment and everything that inhabits the earth. First, the most obvious and direct affect of nuclear science on the environment was the testing of nuclear weapons. Whether underwater and in the atmosphere, nuclear weapons caused widespread environmental damage to the areas testing was conducted. Damage still observable today. Aside from the obvious effects testing nuclear weapons has on the environment there are numerous examples of nuclear science affecting the environment in other more subtle manners as well.
One other example is the use of Geiger counters to estimate snowfall. Although I do not know how much radiation the capsules emitted, it is likely that any kind of radiation in a moderate amount has the ability to have a negative impact on the local environment. Admittedly not a large impact, but an impact nonetheless. Another interesting observation is that the caption to the picture claims that the radioactive capsules are necessary so surveyors do not have to make "tedious climbs" in order to measure the snowfall, but the picture shows a man who has had to climb to inspect the Geiger counter? In the following picture it is also interesting how the doctor's hand is protected from the radioactive element, but the little boy observing the procedure has his face close to the dog with no protective measure being taken.
Next, is food radiation. I may have a slightly bias view on this issue because of my personal beliefs about food and its production, I think that food irradiation could be a potentially dangerous concept that hopefully will not enter the mainstream. Upon reading about irradiated foods I became very fearful for the safety of the food supply. Josephson's article mentions that food irradiation was more prevalent in the USSR rather than the United States because food retailers are wary that consumers will shy away from foods that are branded as to be treated with radiation to get disinfect the food products. Looking into the issue of irradiating the American food supply I found an article published in the FDA Consumer Magazine in 1997 supporting the irradiation of beef. This genuinely scared me.
The article's main argument is that amid rising cases of E-coli contamination in beef greater measures need to be taken to ensure the safety of the food supply. Food irradiation is one recommended measure. Citing the effectiveness of irradiation in eliminating E-coli, salmonella, and campylobacter all found in meat, egg, and milk products the FDA supports the use of irradiation in eliminating these potential diseases in the food supply. Now my intuition says that if these diseases exist in meat, egg, and milk products then maybe their consumption may not be healthy for human beings to consume. Also, the article states that Congressmen have had a few meals that were entirely gamma-sterilized with no ill effects. The article from the FDA mentions several small-scale groceries that sell irradiated food with no decrease in the consumer demand for the products. Likely given the amount of radiation used in irradiation of foods an individual will not become ill after a handful of meals. After decades of consuming irradiated foods, however, unhealthy consequences from consuming the foods may be witnessed. Continued radiation exposure, in any magnitude, cannot be healthy for the human body. I am more shocked now to learn that food irradiation continues to be supported by the FDA as recent as 1997.
Finally, the use of nuclear weapons in Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE). There is no better example of the blatant destruction of the environment than PNE programs worldwide. From the Soviet Union to the United States to South Africa, several countries embarked on PNE programs that are responsible for the destruction of large portions of the environment. Earlier this year a list of the world's most polluted areas was released. Four of the top 10 areas are within the former Soviet Union. Little attention was paid to the environment as hundreds of PNE projects were undertaken. Effects of which are still being felt today in the regions they were undertaken.
The entire era when nuclear culture reigned is a truly disturbing period. Scientists were driven by political and economic motivations as pointed out by Josephson. I fail to understand how the PNE programs served any purpose. Using them to create a port is great, but who will want to live near the port created by a couple hydrogen bombs and be subjected to the radioactive fallout everyday at work? Luckily, by the 1970's environmental consciousness had taken root among the American public. Americans began to think of the world in an ecological manner and in 1976 the USA and USSR had come to an agreement to halt PNE programs.
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/irradbro.html
During the years when the public and scientists widely believed nuclear science could provide an answer to nearly all of the nation/planet's problems there was a blatant disregard for the environment and everything that inhabits the earth. First, the most obvious and direct affect of nuclear science on the environment was the testing of nuclear weapons. Whether underwater and in the atmosphere, nuclear weapons caused widespread environmental damage to the areas testing was conducted. Damage still observable today. Aside from the obvious effects testing nuclear weapons has on the environment there are numerous examples of nuclear science affecting the environment in other more subtle manners as well.
One other example is the use of Geiger counters to estimate snowfall. Although I do not know how much radiation the capsules emitted, it is likely that any kind of radiation in a moderate amount has the ability to have a negative impact on the local environment. Admittedly not a large impact, but an impact nonetheless. Another interesting observation is that the caption to the picture claims that the radioactive capsules are necessary so surveyors do not have to make "tedious climbs" in order to measure the snowfall, but the picture shows a man who has had to climb to inspect the Geiger counter? In the following picture it is also interesting how the doctor's hand is protected from the radioactive element, but the little boy observing the procedure has his face close to the dog with no protective measure being taken.
Next, is food radiation. I may have a slightly bias view on this issue because of my personal beliefs about food and its production, I think that food irradiation could be a potentially dangerous concept that hopefully will not enter the mainstream. Upon reading about irradiated foods I became very fearful for the safety of the food supply. Josephson's article mentions that food irradiation was more prevalent in the USSR rather than the United States because food retailers are wary that consumers will shy away from foods that are branded as to be treated with radiation to get disinfect the food products. Looking into the issue of irradiating the American food supply I found an article published in the FDA Consumer Magazine in 1997 supporting the irradiation of beef. This genuinely scared me.
The article's main argument is that amid rising cases of E-coli contamination in beef greater measures need to be taken to ensure the safety of the food supply. Food irradiation is one recommended measure. Citing the effectiveness of irradiation in eliminating E-coli, salmonella, and campylobacter all found in meat, egg, and milk products the FDA supports the use of irradiation in eliminating these potential diseases in the food supply. Now my intuition says that if these diseases exist in meat, egg, and milk products then maybe their consumption may not be healthy for human beings to consume. Also, the article states that Congressmen have had a few meals that were entirely gamma-sterilized with no ill effects. The article from the FDA mentions several small-scale groceries that sell irradiated food with no decrease in the consumer demand for the products. Likely given the amount of radiation used in irradiation of foods an individual will not become ill after a handful of meals. After decades of consuming irradiated foods, however, unhealthy consequences from consuming the foods may be witnessed. Continued radiation exposure, in any magnitude, cannot be healthy for the human body. I am more shocked now to learn that food irradiation continues to be supported by the FDA as recent as 1997.
Finally, the use of nuclear weapons in Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE). There is no better example of the blatant destruction of the environment than PNE programs worldwide. From the Soviet Union to the United States to South Africa, several countries embarked on PNE programs that are responsible for the destruction of large portions of the environment. Earlier this year a list of the world's most polluted areas was released. Four of the top 10 areas are within the former Soviet Union. Little attention was paid to the environment as hundreds of PNE projects were undertaken. Effects of which are still being felt today in the regions they were undertaken.
The entire era when nuclear culture reigned is a truly disturbing period. Scientists were driven by political and economic motivations as pointed out by Josephson. I fail to understand how the PNE programs served any purpose. Using them to create a port is great, but who will want to live near the port created by a couple hydrogen bombs and be subjected to the radioactive fallout everyday at work? Luckily, by the 1970's environmental consciousness had taken root among the American public. Americans began to think of the world in an ecological manner and in 1976 the USA and USSR had come to an agreement to halt PNE programs.
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/irradbro.html
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Questioning the Revisionist History of Dropping the Atomic Bomb
Whenever someone looks back at history and tries to convince the reader that if y had been done instead of x then the result would have been different in this way, the reader should be skeptical. Such recounts often use evidence to support their claim that action y would have had different outcomes than action x, but neglect to incorporate the information that is contrary to what they are trying to prove. Reading the article about the revisionist view of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan I am to no degree convinced by the evidence put forward that the war could have been ended without any major military action.
First, revisionist history relies on the fact that no one can ever prove you wrong, only speculate. A historian can make any claim regarding a change in the course of action taken and can never be proven wrong with building a time machine to go back in time to witness how exactly things would have been different. Although revisionist history is a good means to question what has occurred in the past and begins the dialogue to discuss past events, it is not an accurate means of recounting what has happened.
The main argument in this particular article that prevents me from agreeing with the vast amounts of revisionist history stating the surrender of Japan could have been obtained without the atomic bomb is Japan's reaction to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Not only the dropping of the atomic bomb, but the fire bombings of Tokyo and Kobe in the months before August 1945. The bombing campaigns had destroyed several square miles of each city and killed nearly 100,000 people. Yet, despite these atrocities the Japanese refused to surrender even though their air force had been destroyed and American bombers were operating with little enemy resistance due to the depleted Japanese air defenses.
Furthermore, the Japanese resistance to surrender is evidenced again by Japan's reaction to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Even after Hiroshima was destroyed the government refused to surrender. After the bombing of Nagasaki there was still a week long delay before the surrender. A country that had dealt with so much suffering and destruction for months would in all likelihood not have surrendered without facing a massive destructive force it could not defend itself against. The atomic bomb was necessary. Japan would not have surrendered without its use.
Just to clarify and sum up my point. If Japan had not surrendered after the firebombing of Tokyo and Kobe which were two utterly atrocious events, and had not surrendered after Hiroshima was destroyed with the dropping of one bomb, what would make people think that Japan would have surrendered without realizing anymore casualties? Japan was not near the brink of surrendering as there revisionist authors suggest. The actions in light of the fire bombing and the delayed surrender after dropping the atomic bombs suggest Japan was much further from surrendering than some suggest.
First, revisionist history relies on the fact that no one can ever prove you wrong, only speculate. A historian can make any claim regarding a change in the course of action taken and can never be proven wrong with building a time machine to go back in time to witness how exactly things would have been different. Although revisionist history is a good means to question what has occurred in the past and begins the dialogue to discuss past events, it is not an accurate means of recounting what has happened.
The main argument in this particular article that prevents me from agreeing with the vast amounts of revisionist history stating the surrender of Japan could have been obtained without the atomic bomb is Japan's reaction to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Not only the dropping of the atomic bomb, but the fire bombings of Tokyo and Kobe in the months before August 1945. The bombing campaigns had destroyed several square miles of each city and killed nearly 100,000 people. Yet, despite these atrocities the Japanese refused to surrender even though their air force had been destroyed and American bombers were operating with little enemy resistance due to the depleted Japanese air defenses.
Furthermore, the Japanese resistance to surrender is evidenced again by Japan's reaction to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Even after Hiroshima was destroyed the government refused to surrender. After the bombing of Nagasaki there was still a week long delay before the surrender. A country that had dealt with so much suffering and destruction for months would in all likelihood not have surrendered without facing a massive destructive force it could not defend itself against. The atomic bomb was necessary. Japan would not have surrendered without its use.
Just to clarify and sum up my point. If Japan had not surrendered after the firebombing of Tokyo and Kobe which were two utterly atrocious events, and had not surrendered after Hiroshima was destroyed with the dropping of one bomb, what would make people think that Japan would have surrendered without realizing anymore casualties? Japan was not near the brink of surrendering as there revisionist authors suggest. The actions in light of the fire bombing and the delayed surrender after dropping the atomic bombs suggest Japan was much further from surrendering than some suggest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)