Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • week_5_questions_comments-325_19
325:questions:week_11_questions_comments-325_17

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
325:questions:week_11_questions_comments-325_17 [2017/04/06 02:45] – 76.78.227.77325:questions:week_11_questions_comments-325_17 [2019/11/07 02:15] (current) – 65.99.125.119
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 The way the AEC marketed nuclear power was very telling about the true uncertainty behind it. By describing the plants as "magic" (220) it illustrates how they needed to tap into the great discovery of it all and stay as far away from the fear of the unknown if they were to be successful. This goes back to the overall feeling of patriotism that we talked about in lecture, the feeling of America being the star of the global stage. - Madison White The way the AEC marketed nuclear power was very telling about the true uncertainty behind it. By describing the plants as "magic" (220) it illustrates how they needed to tap into the great discovery of it all and stay as far away from the fear of the unknown if they were to be successful. This goes back to the overall feeling of patriotism that we talked about in lecture, the feeling of America being the star of the global stage. - Madison White
 +
 +The video that expressed the atomic bombs going off was interesting sight to see because as the years progressed, there were more bombs going off different countries. I interpreted this finding that has technology evolved, so was the development of atomic bombs. I think it’s crazy to think that when the Manhattan project was in development is was huge secret from the world. However, when it was finally revealed, it was a huge influence as the years went on. Although, at the same time, nuclear bombing has caused several deaths in our society, so sometimes its questionable see if it was beneficial to the world. - Rachel Kosmacki 
 +
 +I found the video of the nuclear explosions from around the globe surprising for many reasons. First I think that it was interesting that the closest that the Soviet Union got to beating the United States was in the 1960s. I also thought that Great Britain who threw their hat in the ring early in the game tested the exact number that China did and they came along decades after Britain's first explosion. Lastly it was terrifying to see the map light up like a Christmas tree and in the end the U.S. drastically overcompensated, and that realization is scary to think how many of these weapons are still around after the race was over.-Kendell Jenkins
 +
 +In the Atomic Advertising article, it discusses how the idea to let society know that development of nuclear bomb d should broadcasted all over the world. AEC commissioner T Keith Glennan states in the piece that “the development and utilizationn of the peaceful applications of atomic energy in the accordance with the best traditions of the American system of free competitive enterprise” (217). The benefits from having advertisements about the Atomic Bomb was that it helped the government gain significant profits from people who were interested in it. Although the issue that they ran into is expressing how safe people could be if they were near by nuclear bomb going off. The AEC used  advertisements  for the atomic bomb through . . .  “booklets films, press releases, lectures, and exhibits”(219). I think that by advertising through different media platforms helped the atomic bomb truly boom across the world. - Rachel Kosmacki 
  
 The section of the Smith reading about testing the effects of radiation on food highly alarming. This method of preserving food, despite the perfectly handy refrigerator in everyone’s kitchen, was considered “the food of the future” (Smith, 221). The results of testing showed “irradiated samples…remained fresh and “germ free.” Argonne [Laboratory] reported that “changes in taste [in irradiated food] are scarcely noticeable.” Samples had already been fed to rats, military volunteers, and congressmen “without harmful effect.”” (Smith 221). I can understand how scientists came up with the thought of harnessing the same energy that powers a bomb to, at a weakened level of power, provide energy to homes around the country. However, I’m not quite sure what led to the thought of using nuclear energy to preserve food. Had no one seen the mass destruction caused by the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In what world would the same by-product that killed thousands of people be considered safe for consumption? Obviously, in the small doses they were handling, the radiation proved to be “harmless”, yet they would learn later about the long-term effects of constant exposure. The moral? If it’s not naturally-occurring, or creates a phenomenon in your food that isn’t normal, it probably isn’t good for you. --- //[[htaylor2@umw.edu|Taylor Heather L.]] 2017/04/05 19:14// The section of the Smith reading about testing the effects of radiation on food highly alarming. This method of preserving food, despite the perfectly handy refrigerator in everyone’s kitchen, was considered “the food of the future” (Smith, 221). The results of testing showed “irradiated samples…remained fresh and “germ free.” Argonne [Laboratory] reported that “changes in taste [in irradiated food] are scarcely noticeable.” Samples had already been fed to rats, military volunteers, and congressmen “without harmful effect.”” (Smith 221). I can understand how scientists came up with the thought of harnessing the same energy that powers a bomb to, at a weakened level of power, provide energy to homes around the country. However, I’m not quite sure what led to the thought of using nuclear energy to preserve food. Had no one seen the mass destruction caused by the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In what world would the same by-product that killed thousands of people be considered safe for consumption? Obviously, in the small doses they were handling, the radiation proved to be “harmless”, yet they would learn later about the long-term effects of constant exposure. The moral? If it’s not naturally-occurring, or creates a phenomenon in your food that isn’t normal, it probably isn’t good for you. --- //[[htaylor2@umw.edu|Taylor Heather L.]] 2017/04/05 19:14//
 +
 +The reading regarding food radiation was definitely alarming. It makes me wonder how many people actually bought into the process. Is it like digitally created food today? The concept seems impossible, but some SciFi take advantage of the idea. Creating food from nothing is something vaguely desireable, possibly in the same way preserving food with pure, powerful energy was to people in a developing nuclear world.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2017/04/06 09:16//
  
 I found Smith’s article in Pursell’s book interesting specifically because it tied popular culture to AEC’s advertising of the atomic energy positively. Smith discussed Atom and Eve, a film where the home space could integrate atomic energy. Through the character of Eve twirling around the kitchen with new and shiny appliances all geared towards making life easier. Ultimately, Smith argues that enthusiasts saw atomic energy as “altering Eve’s domestic realm.” (221) Smith also pointed out that even Disney alluded to nuclear energy as a beneficial and positive aspect. (220) The atom, per Disney, was the future and represented the newest scientific discovery. The idea of scientific discovery as positive and beneficial to society further shows how America saw technology after WWII into the 1950s.  I found Smith’s article in Pursell’s book interesting specifically because it tied popular culture to AEC’s advertising of the atomic energy positively. Smith discussed Atom and Eve, a film where the home space could integrate atomic energy. Through the character of Eve twirling around the kitchen with new and shiny appliances all geared towards making life easier. Ultimately, Smith argues that enthusiasts saw atomic energy as “altering Eve’s domestic realm.” (221) Smith also pointed out that even Disney alluded to nuclear energy as a beneficial and positive aspect. (220) The atom, per Disney, was the future and represented the newest scientific discovery. The idea of scientific discovery as positive and beneficial to society further shows how America saw technology after WWII into the 1950s. 
Line 37: Line 45:
 Smith’s closing statement really stood out to me. Smith writes, “Today’s nuclear power plants are artifacts of a generation’s misplaced trust in an unexamined technology; tomorrow’s plants may encapsulate within their cooling towers the next generation’s misplaced trust in the regulatory process (234).” I think this paints a very uneasy image of the future of the Nuclear Power plants. As of 1991, when Smith wrote this essay, it seems it was very unclear as to what the future of Nuclear Power would be. Given that today most tv shows and media focus on the consequences Nuclear weapons and not on the power itself (or at least, that’s what it seems like), I’m not sure what the future of Nuclear Power holds now. I know personally I don’t trust the regulatory process when it comes to Nuclear plants, which likely stems from my lack of knowledge about the processes, but I’m curious as to what Americans today think about Nuclear Power. (On a different note, if you haven’t heard of “Zombie Prom,” I highly recommend listening to it on Spotify or YouTube. It’s basically Grease but if a Nuclear Power Plant was involved. The school is called “Enrico Fermi High,” sound familiar?) - Shannon Keene Smith’s closing statement really stood out to me. Smith writes, “Today’s nuclear power plants are artifacts of a generation’s misplaced trust in an unexamined technology; tomorrow’s plants may encapsulate within their cooling towers the next generation’s misplaced trust in the regulatory process (234).” I think this paints a very uneasy image of the future of the Nuclear Power plants. As of 1991, when Smith wrote this essay, it seems it was very unclear as to what the future of Nuclear Power would be. Given that today most tv shows and media focus on the consequences Nuclear weapons and not on the power itself (or at least, that’s what it seems like), I’m not sure what the future of Nuclear Power holds now. I know personally I don’t trust the regulatory process when it comes to Nuclear plants, which likely stems from my lack of knowledge about the processes, but I’m curious as to what Americans today think about Nuclear Power. (On a different note, if you haven’t heard of “Zombie Prom,” I highly recommend listening to it on Spotify or YouTube. It’s basically Grease but if a Nuclear Power Plant was involved. The school is called “Enrico Fermi High,” sound familiar?) - Shannon Keene
  
 +I was really drawn to part of Smith's closing statements as well. He states that the "most dangerous threat to an environmentally sound nuclear policy today may be the inability of any regulatory process to extract both safety and productivity from current nuclear technology" (234). This interested me especially because I think it still holds true today, almost three decades later. Its odd that the technological advancement in terms of finding a safe, productive method of harnessing nuclear energy has come to what seems like a standstill compared to the incredibly rapid advancement of other technologies that we've studied so far, like phones and lightbulbs even. Nuclear energy is clearly a much more dangerous form of technology, so this lag in technological progression would appear to be solely caused by fear of the possible outcomes of continued advancement.  - Megan P.
  
 Reading through this, I couldn't help but think of the sheer magnitude of power that America released once they completed the bomb. It is similar to Dr. Frankenstein creating his monster and the world watching it roam free. As soon as the bomb was complete, and dropped, nuclear power was out of America's hands and into a sphere more powerful than anyone could completely control. Reading about the caution that America put into preparing for the worst every day and the fear instilled in citizens from a young age is similar to the fears experienced by Americans after the September 11 attacks. The TSA buttoned down the hatches and strengthened airport security to almost unreasonable measures, but it was a reaction. Nothing could prepare anyone for the ensuing tragedies that occurred in Hiroshima/Nagasaki and in New York/DC.  --- //[[kmcgowan@umw.edu|McGowan Khayla J.]] 2017/04/05 21:29// Reading through this, I couldn't help but think of the sheer magnitude of power that America released once they completed the bomb. It is similar to Dr. Frankenstein creating his monster and the world watching it roam free. As soon as the bomb was complete, and dropped, nuclear power was out of America's hands and into a sphere more powerful than anyone could completely control. Reading about the caution that America put into preparing for the worst every day and the fear instilled in citizens from a young age is similar to the fears experienced by Americans after the September 11 attacks. The TSA buttoned down the hatches and strengthened airport security to almost unreasonable measures, but it was a reaction. Nothing could prepare anyone for the ensuing tragedies that occurred in Hiroshima/Nagasaki and in New York/DC.  --- //[[kmcgowan@umw.edu|McGowan Khayla J.]] 2017/04/05 21:29//
Line 46: Line 55:
 We briefly touched on in class the environmental impacts that resulted after both the atomic bombs had been dropped in Japan. However, I think that this article in Pursell did a great job of showing that even the scientists behind the creation of America’s nuclear technology had their reservations as well. For example, on page 212, there is a section about Dr. Edward Teller talking about the environmental risks that went along with nuclear technology. Again, on page 229, it talks about how the AEC was slow to realize that many of the people that were hesitant and critical of the environmental impacts were engineers and AEC scientists. It was an interesting contrast between being proponents for this type of technology while being reserved about its environmental impacts. –Emma Baumgardner  We briefly touched on in class the environmental impacts that resulted after both the atomic bombs had been dropped in Japan. However, I think that this article in Pursell did a great job of showing that even the scientists behind the creation of America’s nuclear technology had their reservations as well. For example, on page 212, there is a section about Dr. Edward Teller talking about the environmental risks that went along with nuclear technology. Again, on page 229, it talks about how the AEC was slow to realize that many of the people that were hesitant and critical of the environmental impacts were engineers and AEC scientists. It was an interesting contrast between being proponents for this type of technology while being reserved about its environmental impacts. –Emma Baumgardner 
  
 +One of the most interesting parts of the Smith reading for me was the advertising that domesticated the atom. Specifically, the Disney production, Our Friend The Atom, which shrouds the atom in a magical, fantastical light. This is so ethically problematic in so many ways! Portraying something as magic that has the ability to kill so many people? This is a clear example of the scary ways that dangerous ideas that we take for granted today are introduced and ingested into American society, almost unthinkably. Nuclear energy has always been a fact of my lifetime. I don’t ever think about at time when it had to be introduced.  –Anna-Marie Collins 
 +
 +The Smith reading brings up the idea that technology is something that can be controlled and that the people who control these technologies are powerful because of the political currency they possess with it. This is conveyed through dominating language such as the “obedient atom” and even the notion that a nuclear bomb is activated by the flick of a switch by a human hand, creating the illusion that the human is the master of the atom. (This just isn’t the case, shown from nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl). However people like Eisenhower and the letter from Edward Teller urge that this is no reason to stop researching nuclear technology. Teller says, “The unavoidable danger which will remain after all reasonable controls have been employed must not stand in the way of rapid development of nuclear power” (239). History has taught us that it never ends very well when man tries to play God, but when has that ever stop us trying anyway for the sake of progress? –Anna-Marie Collins
 +I thought it was interesting that advertising for nuclear power was so important. The Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) “sponsored the first national conference on public relations for nuclear power” Public relations work was very important for nuclear energy. The public needed to be okay and feel safe about nuclear power. The goal was to make americans feel proud about nuclear energy. As we have talked about a lot in this course the way advertisement or just information to the public goes out is very important on shaping people’s views and when it came to nuclear power this was very important. (216-219). Megan Liberty
 +
 +
 +In the 1970s people had just started becoming aware and had growing concerns for the environment and energy usage. Because nuclear power was relatively cheap at this time it was using a lot of energy by a large number of consumers. Over the next few years magazines and books were written bringing awareness to the environmental costs that happen because of the use of all the energy that led to pollution. A scientist “testified that the long-term effects of low-level radiation were unknown” led to Theos J. Thompson comparing that to not using nuclear energy is like not getting out of bed because of the possibility of “slipping on the way to the bathroom”, putting nuclear energy in a way that seems like it’s just normal life and you can’t be afraid of little things that could happen. (227-229) Megan Liberty
 +
 +The film absolutely amazed me. I had no idea that many nuclear explosions had occurred by then end of the year 1998, a number I am sure has gone up, since in a year and half, it will have been 20 years since the numbers have been updated. The US was responsible for about half which, many of which occurred on the west coast. At the end of the video, when they showed how effected exposed areas were by the explosions. When it did the US, the whole west coast all the way into New Mexico was light up. This is terrifying to see, and shows that many of the nuclear explosions we have created took place within our own borders. - Heidi Schmidt
 +
 +"Atomic Power was thus domesticated - in the form of a powerful but docile servant" (220). This quote is in reference to the Disney Movie //Our Friend the Atom//, which aired on TV in 1956. This TV movie is just one example of the different types of propaganda that was used to sell atomic power to the public in the US after World War II. They were used to show how "safe" and "great" atomic power was. Not the destructive power that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. - Heidi Schmidt
 +
 +The film titled “1945-1998” by Isao Hashimoto shows just how many nuclear explosions occurred in the world throughout that time frame. I did not realize that there were as much as 2,053 explosions. The highest number of explosions come from the United States and the Soviet Union due to the Cold War. The United States had the highest number of explosions by far with 1,032. This film was very strange at first because there was no dialogue, just beeps and flashes. The style of the film made the amount of explosions seem more noticeable and important. Hashimoto was able to tell an important story about the magnitude of nuclear power in the world without saying any words. -Nicole Spreeman
 +
 +
 +The excerpt written by Smith goes over a lot of what we talked about in class. He uses the Strauss analogy of the two-way switch to symbolize the way the atom and nuclear energy is viewed. On one hand, it could be a peaceful atom that allowed for energy to be more efficient and easier. On the other hand, it could be used as a destructive weapon, as seen at the end of World War II. This is the main reason nuclear power is so controversial and polarizing. The U.S. government also played a huge role in the development of this industry ever since the Manhattan Project. The atom was originally utilized for military purposes during the war, once the media began to criticize this energy, the federal government began to make plans. It was only after the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 that the government tried to place civilians in charge of a “peaceful atom” initiative in order to gain the support of the public. -Nicole Spreeman
 +
 +
 +The Edward Teller document is fascinating because in addition to discussing inevitable safety dilemmas with nuclear products, it also addresses the economic realities of nuclear production. Nuclear energy is expensive. There are two parties in play here: the private companies who manufacture nuclear products and the government who purchases those products. In the document, Teller illustrates a way for private companies to make money while the government stimulates the country's power production. Essentially, Teller wants the government to agree to fixed price at which they purchase nuclear products for a period of 5 to 10 years. This will ensure that the private companies continue to make money to produce more products while the government fortifies their nuclear arsenal. -Yousef Nasser
 +
 +
 +The Nuclear Public Relations Campaign is interesting because it demonstrates the sense of urgency behind educating the public about nuclear power. The program took place in 1981 during the Cold War. While the campaign was described as being "non-adversarial, avoiding advocacy and minimizing defensive material," my read on this is that the program was labelled as such as to diffuse any immediate resistance. The reality is that the country could not afford to fall behind in regards to nuclear production, especially considering that other countries were potentially developing their nuclear technology. In essence, this "public affairs program" is not dissimilar from the pro-nuclear propaganda we discussed in class. The distinction is that this program is marketed as a non-partisan educational campaign as opposed to being overtly pro-nuclear production. -Yousef Nasser
 +
 +One aspect that I found interesting was the speed in which other countries - both allies and enemies - gained the atomic bomb. Growing up, the focus of what I was taught in school was on the US dropping the bomb at en WWII and then that the Soviet Union gained the bomb at the beginning of the Cold War. However, this video presented a more globalistic view to the atomic bomb. - Helen Salita 
 +
 +Before this reading, I have never considered the steps that the US had to take in order to help convince its citizens that the atomic bomb could be used for something more than death and destruction. Today, we know the horrible effects of the bomb, but also know that it can be a form of clean energy. But i had never thought about the steps needed to get people from one viewpoint to another. - Helen Salita
 +
 +I've said in a previous reading that humans are creatures of habit and do not like change. I can only imagine how true that was for nuclear energy especially after realizing the devastating effects it can have on society. Then you have to take into account that the government not only had to convince Americans that it can be used peacefully, but the world as well. The campaign to give a peaceful image had to convenience people that nuclear power was safe and was actually more useful than the power systems already in place. Officials has to spin the idea of atomic power in way that would convince the population that it would be a good idea. They did this through several calculated means such as changing the name from atomic power to nuclear energy to get away from the negative connotations associated with atomic energy. --Kasey Mayer
 +
 +The video was extremely eye opening. I had no idea that there were so many tests done in such a relatively short amount of time. It was also interesting to compare how many tests were done by each country. The US by far outnumbered any other country with Russia close behind. Great Britain, while being the next to joined, seem to have a much lower rate. They had a relative small number of tests despite the a mount of time they seemed to have the technology in their possession. It was interesting to compare the frequency of the different countries, but it was shocking to realize how many tests were done. --Kasey Mayer
 +
 +I found the overall social view of nuclear energy extremely interesting. There was definitely a paradigm shift of thought that had to occur regarding the uses, impact and possibilities that this unpredictable form of energy offered in terms of advancement in society and technology. The global race to obtain and establish the "best" nuclear program definitely was a major driving force for many superpowers and lesser post world war II. With nuclear energy, comes great power. The ability to threaten, coerce and thrive in the realm of international relations makes the atomic bomb take on the role of catalyst in history, jump-starting the creation of a new world order. - Danielle Howard
 +
 +The film was very good. Had no idea that there were so many tests done in such a relatively short amount of time sense the material was so dangerous. It was also interesting to compare how many tests were done by each country. The US by far outnumbered any other country with Russia close behind. Daryl 
 +
 +The artwork "1945-1998" was a harrowing visualization of nuclear development between the title years. After the first few bombs, which we covered in class,  thousands more appeared that I had no idea about. The fact that 2053 bombs have been tested, and in such concentrated areas like the Southwest of America, was alarming and amazing to see. So much of the world has developed nuclear weaponry now, and yet it is still enough to count. Tallying up the number of fire bombs used would likely be more impossible. Will nuclear weapons ever get to that point? I can see now why people feared nuclear fallout so much as a potential apocalypse.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2017/04/06 09:16//
325/questions/week_11_questions_comments-325_17.1491446714.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017/04/06 02:45 by 76.78.227.77