Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

====== Advertising the Atom: Michael Smith ======

In his essay, Michael Smith is explaining how the rise of the atomic bomb and atomic energy in the United States during the Cold War in the 1970s was based on political motivations that had developed since the 1950s and 60s. He also makes the connection between how these federal policies have resulted in the environmental impacts nuclear technology brings to society. - Grayson Donohoe

This section of the reading discussed the evolution of civilian nuclear power programs and the political and environmental influences that shaped them. I found some of the discussion of all the different government agencies to be a bit confusing, but overall it was intriguing to see how nuclear power was seen before the highly-publicized and devastating accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. - Noah Rutkowski

In his essay Smith talks about the post war context of the bomb and the impact culturally. After it was dropped many people saw it as a destruction but it was marketed as the "friendly atom". They advertised it as clean, friendly, and the future, as a way to keep the fear of the bomb down. - Will C

I found it a bit unsettling as they were advertising something to destructive as an atom bomb as something in a positive connotation, promising a better future. The atom bomb was even called “peaceful” while being an incredibly destructive force.- Izzy Ellenberger

Following the development of nuclear weaponry, the atom became conspicuous with destruction. It’s not surprising that since then people have had a hard time seeing nuclear projects as being a “peaceful” method of energy . - Justin Hoskins

This chapter delves into the history of the development of atomic bombs and atomic energy through the study of political discourses. The author primarily focuses on the United States, although he notes similar propaganda methods in the USSR. Generally, Smith argues that the US government and private industry collaborated in a campaign to sell the idea of the peaceful atom to a public, which was haunted by nuclear warfare. - Nikolai Kotkov

Campaigns for "the peaceful atom" celebrated atomic power as a positive in technological advancement. Public attitude were overwhelmingly positive and introduced nuclear power in different ways to appeal to different generations. //Our Friend the Atom// still stands out to me, it makes me wonder how advertisements like these would be received today regarding contemporary issues. - Izabella Martinez

====== Document A:US Congress, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Atomic Power Development and Private Enterprise  ======

This document expressed the uncertainties and safety issues related to nuclear energy and the infrastructure needed to implement it. It gave the road map for potential safety nets and the need for advisory committees to review and predict potential dangers. It gives that 'fear' of new technology that we see with so many other artifacts of technology. And lastly it mentioned some possible financial implications for military use, and described the range of applications atomic energy could be used to support the military. --James Clayberg

The document regards the hesitations to be had when it comes to the conversation of nuclear energy. At the time of its creation, the technology relied largely on implications for its potential applications such as in military or infrastructural settings. -Kaden Crim

This document expresses the desire for nuclear technology to be handled by the US government in a safe manner due to its destructive capabilities but also campaigns for the federal government to - from my understanding - purchase nuclear technology from private companies for an agreed upon amount and allotted time to use in its military. While I understand this is a understandable step and their were discussions of how to safely use nuclear technology, it’s interesting to see both a concern for safety but at the same time a want to make nuclear technology apart of the US military. - Grayson Donohoe

This document talks about how the government tried to balance public control with private industry. With the discussion of the importance and concern for safety. -Izzy Ellenberger

I found it interesting that the author of this document (Edward Teller) accepted the possibility of an “occasional loss of life” as an acceptable cost for the rapid development of nuclear power. His reasoning reminded me of General Turgidson from Dr. Strangelove, who coolly calculated that the United States might have to sacrifice “twenty million people, tops” in the event of a nuclear conflict. - Nikolai Kotkov

The document talks about the uncertainty and the unclear of how safe this energy was at the time of its creation. While it warned us and try to make us more aware about the dangers it also was talking about ways that the US could implement safe nuclear energy. - Will C

This passage looks at nuclear energy from a significantly more militaristic approach. Bringing focus to how these areas could be targets and the dangers associated with surrounding areas. Another way this strikes me is how the speaker mentions they’ve had good luck avoiding nuclear disaster but believes it is inevitable in time.   - Justin Hoskins

====== Document B:US Congress, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Environmental Effects of Producing Electric Power, Hearings ======

This document hits on potential environmental issues, specifically focusing on that of polluted water and waste heat. The theme of the document is kind of a struggle of who is in charge of making decisions on regulating these new atomic energy plants. And then specifically what regulations actually matter and which ones do not. --James Clayberg

In line with document A, document B shifts to focus on the potential risks to be had when it comes to nuclear byproduct. Dysregulation has lead to mixed views amongst the voices of US Congress at the time of the document's writing and the conversation of nuclear energy continues to match the muddled tone of document A. - Kaden

This document discusses the environmental impacts of producing energy with nuclear technology, specifically when it comes to nuclear waste. We can also see some government regulation of atomic waste with bringing up the Atomic Energy Act where states have the opportunity to be notified and discuss the use of atomic energy. - Grayson Donohoe

Just like in document A it expresses the concern for safety and the frustration of the individual states wanting to regulate the area rather than the federal government. They acknowledge the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Radiation Council being more of an expert in the hazards of the radiological effects rather than the individual states. - Izzy Ellenberger

This document offers an interesting example of recognition of the ecological costs of nuclear and energy power production. It is particularly striking that some of the safety and environmental standards established by the Atomic Energy Commission may not have been adequate. - Nikolai Kotkov

This Congressional hearing document captures the growing tension in the mid-20th century between technological optimism and environmental responsibility. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, originally created to oversee nuclear power, broadened its focus by the late 1960s and 1970s to consider the environmental consequences of energy production both nuclear and conventional. The hearings reveal how policymakers, scientists, and engineers grappled with the unforeseen byproducts of industrial progress: air and water pollution, thermal waste from power plants, and the long-term risks of radioactive contamination. What emerges is a portrait of a society wrestling with the limits of its own technological achievements. The same government that had once championed atomic energy as the pinnacle of modern civilization was now forced to confront the ecological and human costs of that success. - Todd Holman

This passage covers an exchange regarding environmental issues with nuclear energy. Pointed to how some believe the standards set by the government were too lax to be safe. It seems reasonable to me that if a state would want to increase regulations to improve safety, they should be allowed to do so.   - Justin Hoskins

====== Document C:US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power ======

The nuclear public relations campaign was created and in this document it is updated with the purpose of giving factual and up to date information about the developments in nuclear technology and what impacts that could have for them. - Grayson Donohoe

This section covers the United States government's attempts to boost public opinion on nuclear energy through their public affairs operations. I found section 3 of “Proposal for a Nuclear Energy Public Affairs Program” quite interesting to read, as it breaks down how the government thinks it best to appeal to certain people with different backgrounds and occupations.  - Justin Hoskins

This document represents a later stage in the American government’s engagement with the consequences of its technological expansion the hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power during the 1970s and 1980s. By this time, the optimism of the atomic age had given way to a sobering recognition of resource limits, energy crises, and environmental degradation. The hearings focused on the urgent need to balance energy production with conservation and environmental stewardship. Lawmakers examined the inefficiencies of fossil fuels, the risks of nuclear dependence, and the promise of alternative energy technologies such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. What makes this document important is its tone: it reflects a Congress that was no longer celebrating innovation blindly but struggling to reconcile progress with sustainability a distinctly post-industrial mindset. - Todd Holman
====== Isao Hashimoto’s 1945-1998 ======

The video showed all of the experiments when they happened and what countries were performing them. The difference between the U.S. and Russia and everyone else is significant. Very intresting to see the locations for testing, in deserts and low populated areas. I could only think of the difficulties it must take for global powers like the U.S. and Russia to not want other nations to have easy access to weapons of mass destruction, but if we have them and test them why are these other countries not allowed to, that would be a common rational. ---James Clayberg

The video was able to depict the development of atomic weapons in a really interesting way by marking where on the world map these experiments/uses were taking place and then keeping count of the amount of tests were done by different nations. We can see that the United States and the Soviet Union were clear dominating forces of this with both of them having numbers far exceeding those of other nations. - Grayson Donohoe

The video is a form of expressive media designed to illustrate the testing and implementation of nuclear bombs throughout the 20th century. Flags are joined by a number indicating the total amount of bombs detonated. A map illustrates where these bombs detonated and color coding indicates by whom. Overall, it is a grave reminder of the ignorance which first pioneered nuclear energy, and as relevant to class, calls to attention the true danger of power in the hands of the naive. - Kaden Crim

This video presented a clear and unsettling representation of the experiments that happened over this time. - Izzy Ellenberger

This video is a great visual representation of atomic bomb testing from different countries. This is something not usually discussed frequently in history, so it can be a great educational resource for students to use. Even if the video looks simple, it easily allows the viewer to understand the countries involved, the amount of tests, the frequency during the months and years, and the locations of the tests. It's an unsettling thing to be able to see together as a whole, but at the same time it's very informative. This is a very valuable resource that makes you think about how frequent the bombs were used even knowing how dangerous and destructive they were. - Ashley Palin

This is a video representation depicting the evolution of nuclear weapons around the world. The last part of the video is probably the best visual representation of these tests globally. I've visited the Hiroshima peace park and museum quite a few times and being able to see the devastation that these weapons can cause to entire communities in such a short amount of time, is an extremely unsettling feeling. How the powerful few dominated and time went on, it makes me wonder what's next for this form of technology. - Izabella Martinez

It was very unnerving to watch this video, demonstrating nuclear weapons that were being developed by various countries. The sound that plays as the numbers rise up continues to play more and more, and you see more countries added to the counter. - Hannah Holstrom

This video displays, in a very interesting way, nuclear tests performed by each country over time. I was surprised to see just how many more tests the United States and USSR had done compared to other countries, and just how exponentially it grew during the cold war. It makes me curious, how rapidly was this technology developing to justify so many tests, or were all these tests conducted just to be a show of force. - Justin Hoskins

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International