Review Part Deux

So, this seemed to work a little bit the last time I did it and really I can think of no other way to study and I think to end the class than in this manner.

The Principle of Induction and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
I am not a science, math, or test taking person at all. A main reason for this is my reluctance to believe and lack of faith in the Principle of Induction. Just because y has happened x times does not mean that y will also occur on the x+1 time. Everything is an independent event and previous events do not affect the future events. I think about it like keno. Number 37 may not be called for 20 consecutive games. This does not mean that on the 21st game number 37 will not be called, nor does it mean that on the 21st game the number 37 will be called. The 21st game is an independent event the 20th game has no influence. Unfortunately, pretty much all mathematical and scientific principles are based on this theory. Without it we wouldn't get anywhere in society because we would constantly be trying to prove to ourselves the same events are true. I am probably over simplyfying this whole concepty, but that's just how I view science and math. ANYWAYS, for some reason I thought my lack of faith in the Principle of Induction would be explained scientifically by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Quickly this hope of resolution dimminished. Upon further review the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle admits that a particles location cannot be predicted with 100% certainty. This is due to the size and speed at which particles move. Instead, particles can only be predicted with a certainty that is less than 100% as to their current location. It represents a break from classical physics where everything could be quantified because everything in classical physics was on the macroscopic scale.

Einstein's Politics
Moving on to a little bit of history. I find Einstein's "Manifesto to the Europeants", written in October of 1914, to be a particularly engaging document. Einstein makes an appeal to the citizens of Europe to come together and call for an end to the war. He sites how science has been interrupted in the first sentence of the document, "While technology and traggic clearly drive us toward a factual recognition of international relations, and thus toward a common world civilization, it is also true that no war has ever so intensively interrupted the cultural communalism of cooperative work as this present war does." Einstein is clearly concerned about the war's affect on scientific cooperation among the European countries. After the war Einstein's fears about the state of German science are confirmed when German scientists are essentially left out of international forums and publications. Furthermore, in his "Manifesto to the Europeans" Einstein specifically calls for his scientific comrades in other European nations to use their influence to bring an end to the war. A sign of the influence scientists had during the era. In addition to the "Manifesto to the Europeans", Einstein also commented on the war in, "My Opinion of the War". In this document Einstein believes that to prevent a war similar to World War I in the future two things need to happen. First, an organization eerily similar to the League of Nations needed to be established as a forum for European Nations to meet. Second, the people themselves need to be cured of their nationalistic thoughts they harbor. Patriotism and nationalism according to Einstein are harbors of, "bestial hatred and mass murder". It is only after these two conditions have been met that future war on the continent can be averted. Therefore, Einstein's initial political activities began during the First World War. Einstein following the war became a major component to the pacifist movement. In 1955 Einstein coauthored the "Russell-Einstein Manifesto". In it Einstein and Bertrand Russell (a leader of the anti-war movement in England) warned the world that the amount of nuclear proliferation and hatred in the world would mean the death of humanity. They call for a conference of scientists to assess the risks that have developed because of nuclear weapons. Einstein even explains how a bomb could cause deadly radiation in areas hundreds of miles away, citing the Daigo Fukuryū Maru incident that occurred just a year earlier. Towards the end of the document Russell and Einstein make a grim proposal, "There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose, death, because we cannot forget our quarrels?"

In the manner of physicis, Einstein was concerned both during and following the war that Germans would be shut in by the world scientific community as punishment. Of course this happened. Afterall, the German scientists were responsible for the development of various chemical agents used against Allied troops. Yet, this brings up the discussion of whether the scientists should be held responsible for their deployment because they created them, or the commanders who ordered their use, but that's for another time. After the war, Einstein was involved politically with the rise of the Third Reich. Einstein's theories of relativity were attacked as being "Jew Science". Einstein, Germany's most recognized scientist, was attacked by party officials for his zionist beliefs and his work for the zionist movement.

Moderators
During the nuclear energy process chain reactions need to be controlled. Unlike in nuclear weapons where chain reactions go uncontrolled, in nuclear power plants want to have close control over the chain reactions. In order to do this, the speeds of neutrons are slowed in nuclear reactors. Moderators are used to regulate speeds of neutrons in nuclear reactors. In the United States water is used as the moderator. In European countries deuterium (heavy water) and graphite are often used as moderators. The moderators are used to absorb neutron energy, not the neutrons themselves. In the lightwater reactors in the United States there is a great deal of neutron absorption. This simply means that the number of neutrons available to sustain the reaction are reduced and the reactor cannot run on unenriched nuclear fuel. Again, I fail to understand how the assumption can be made that only three neutrons will result from a fission event. What would happen to nuclear reactors started to give off more than 3 neutrons with each fission event? I know that it has been observed that each fission event gives off 3 neutrons, but I can't bring myself to believe that there are instances or at least possible instances where 4 neutrons or more could be given off.

National Socialism, Communism, McCarthyism, and Physics
Pointing out the subtle differences between these three periods in the three different countries will be rather tedious. I think that by discussing them together is much more effective and interesting. All three periods occur in different countries with differing government structures, but all have roughly the same affect. In Germany during the Third Reich scientists were forced to do the work of the government in a variety of ways. If a scientist was Jewish he was sent to some kind of forced labor or concentration camp and his research didn't matter. Even scientists' like Heisenberg who had close relationships with Jewish scientists faced great resistance as to whether they should be allowed to practice. If a scientist's work was not beneficial to the war effort then it was useless. He was told to join the army where he will be more useful to the war effort. In the Soviet Union under Stalin a similar situation was observed. If a scientist was not loyal to the communist party they would be detained, sent to a labor camp, or even killed. In the United States under Mccarthyism a similar situation arose. Scientists who were not in line with the scietific goals of the United States government were deemed a communist and forced into a trial. For example, the Oppenheimer Affair. In all three instances the government's dictated what scientists in their country were to research. There was little open research. If research did not directly benefit a country and its short term goals then there were methods of persuading scientists to refocus their efforts onto experiments and projects that will help the national effort.

George Koval

This morning I found this article to be interesting and very relevent to class. During class we had talked about Klaus Fuchs and his espionage work. The discussion inevitably led to how much did the Soviets learn on their own and how much was the result of espionage, especially given the quick turnaround between the American bomb and the Soviet version. Even with all the difficulties the Soviet bomb program had during World War II. The lack of resources, especially, that hindered the development of the atomic bomb project. To develop an atomic bomb under those circumstances in less than five years after the Americans is truly remarkable.

The article today is further evidence that perhaps the Soviet's had taken more from the Americans than at once was believed. The article mentions the exploits of George Koval specifically, but also mentions that Koval was only one of a number of Soviet espionage agents working to steal the United States' atomic secrets. Koval has been a member of G.R.U, the military intelligence agency. He had unprecedented access to the Manhatten Project at Oak Ridge. Having the administrative clearance to gain access to the most sensitive areas of the plant to understad how the Americans were manufacturing nuclear fuel, perhaps the most difficult component to mass producing nuclear weapons.

Of course it makes sense to disclose of Koval's status as a spy until now. The Soviets went to great lengths to present themselves as the orgininators of their own bomb. By admitting that the bomb had been acquired through espionage, the status of Soviet science is somehow diminished, and with that the entire concept of having a bomb being correlated with a scientifically advanced society is tarnished. Yet with Klaus Fucks and now George Koval along with numerous unknown others it is becoming more evident that the ability of the Soviet Union to develop a nuclear weapon in such a quick span of time is largely due to espionage, rather than scientific activities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12koval.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1194886909-6Gc1nDRj+G5mxZUDmEeyAg

Understanding Different Forms of Deterrence

Trying to rationalize Reagan's decision to embark on the "Star Wars" is proving to be very difficult. In order to do so you need to convince yourself that creating such a system is 1) possible and 2) 100% effective. Two decades of research has shown that a missle defense system is possible, but far from effective. Reagan states that Americans should feel safe not because they know American retaliation is imminent, but because the United States possesses the ability to actually intercept and destroy a Russian missle before it reaches its target. This is where the assumption that a missle defense system must be 100% effective. If the United States were bombed while a missle defense system was in place what would the next action be? With so much investment in the missle defense system, could the United States then retaliate with nuclear weapons after the failure of the missle defense system? In such an environment instead of an arms race, countries will simply build missles that can evade the missle defense system, or even worse, launch multiple missles at once under the reasoning that one has to get through. Did Reagan actually believe that a missle shield could be 100% effective?

Mutually assured destruction was a very effective detterence policy that had prevented nations from using nuclear weapons against one another. So, why introduce a new policy of deterrence to replace one that had proven to work? I can think of two explanations. First, Reagan possibly believed that it was a cause the nation would rally around like the Space Race of the 50's and 60's. Encouraging more children to learn science and math in order to contribute to the building missle defense system. This did not come to fruition. Second, more outragious, but not entirely impossible given the subsequent medical information about Reagan's deteriorating mental health, Reagan desired the United States have an omnipotent status over the rest of the world. An essay in the 1950's by Robert Strauss-Hupe called "The Balance of Tomorrow" called on the United States to extend its influence and values over the entirety of the world. By creating a missle defense system in the way Reagan likely envisioned it (100% effective), Reagan could claim dominion over the rest of the world. Expanding American influence over the entirety of the globe with no threat of resistance. With a perfectly effective missle defense system in place the United States could make demands of any country backed up by a large nuclear arsenal. That country would then be powerless to do anything but comply because the principle of mutal destruction no longer would exist.

After much thought those are the only two reasons I can come up with to explain a missle defense program. Essentially, neither is a good reason. So, there is/was no good reason for the development of a missle defense system.

Doing something because it's difficult makes no sense

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.

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.

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

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.