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