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 13:26] – 73.216.139.172325:questions:week_11_questions_comments-325_17 [2019/11/07 02:15] (current) – 65.99.125.119
Line 22: Line 22:
  
 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  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  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 85: Line 89:
  
 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 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_17.1491485174.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017/04/06 13:26 by 73.216.139.172