By Christine Barie (artist) and Kathie MM
Pegean says, “This is a test!”
1. Find the moral disengagement—specifically, ignoring, mimimizing, or denying negative consequences. 2. Find the moral engagement—specifically, recognizing, and trying to prevent negative consequences. 3. Ask yourself, “Who dares to tell the truth?”
By Lawrence S. Wittner*
Workers in nuclear weapons plants constitute only a fraction of Americans whose lives have been ravaged by preparations for nuclear war. A 2002 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services maintained that, between 1951 and 1963 alone, the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons—more than half of it done by the United States—killed 11,000 Americans through cancer. As this estimate does not include internal radiation exposure caused by inhaling or swallowing radioactive particles, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research has maintained that the actual number of fatal cancers caused by nuclear testing could be 17,000.
Of course, a larger number of people contracted cancer from nuclear testing than actually died of it. The government study estimated that those who contracted cancer numbered at least 80,000 Americans.
Who were these Americans? Many of them were “downwinders”—people whose towns and cities were located near U.S. nuclear testing sites and, thus, were contaminated by deadly clouds of nuclear fallout carried along by the wind.
During the 1950s, the U.S. government conducted close to a hundred atmospheric nuclear explosions at its Nevada test site. Nearly 30 percent of the radioactive debris drifted over the towns to the east, which housed a population of roughly 100,000 people.
The residents of St. George, Utah, recalled that a “pink cloud” would hang over them while they worked amid the fallout, walked in it, breathed it, washed their clothes in it, and ate it.
“Even the little children ate the snow,”recalled one resident. “They didn’t know it was going to kill them later on.”
*Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and rebellion, What’s Going On at UAardvark?
There is bad news, scary news, and good news about reducing the threat of nuclear war.
The bad news, belated though it may be, is that the world came very close to Armageddon in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis. To learn more about what could have been an apocalypse, read Noam Chomsky’s article in the UK Guardian and watch this video.
If nuclear war had not been averted 50 years ago, you might not be here today.
The scary news is that there are over 10,000 nuclear warheads in the world, that nine countries have tested nuclear weapons, and that nuclear weapons proliferation continues despite the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The video above provides a dramatic visual reminder of the dangerous spreading of nuclear weapons around the world and the devastation they can produce.
The good news is that efforts continue to reduce the risk of nuclear war and move towards disarmament.
The United Nations has declared October 24-October 30 to be International Disarmament Week . This is a good week to start taking action.
Join the millions of people who have protested against nuclear armaments in the decades since the U.S. became the first and only nation to drop atomic bombs on a civilian population.
To “arm” yourself with the facts of the nuclear arms race and the counter-force for disarmament, invest 18 minutes of your time in watching an excellent video.
And while you are at it, please invest in EngagingPeace.com. Just click on the Donate button on the right. A one-time donation or monthly or weekly donation of as little as $10 is another way you can work for peace by supporting our educational efforts. Thank you!
Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology
Sunday, April 22, is Earth Day. Today we honor the Earth by calling attention to the common goals of the peace and environmental sustainability movements.
But first, some context: Assessing the impact of war on the environment can be fraught with complexity, but here is a sampling of those effects:
It works the other way, too–that misuse, destruction, and scarcity of natural resources can be the cause of war. Examples include conflicts over oil in the Middle East, rare metals in the Congo, food shortages and water scarcity in South Asia and throughout the world. More and more, climate disruption is becoming or is predicted (pdf) to be a source of conflict.
In other words, environmental degradation is a threat to global security.
As you celebrate Earth Day on Sunday, please consider what it will take to stop the intertwined scourges of warfare and environmental destruction. Even more important, make a commitment to do something about them.
Pat Daniel, Ph.D., Managing Editor of Engaging Peace