Analyzing articles on U.S. nuclear weapons testing and radiation exposure

¶ … Nuclear Weapons Issue:

Comparing Two Articles

Nuclear Weapons are not to be trifled with. These monsters can, in fact, annihilate the Earth in minutes. Though many applaud the progress of technology in achieving such powerful weapons, most people lobby against nuclear weapon use, which can be detrimental on land, vegetation, animal life, sea life, water life, and, of course, humanity at large. From previous examinations, it is necessary to note that nuclear weapons have harmed those that were nowhere near where they were detonated, thus proving the incredible extent of damage that they can provoke. This paper will analyze two articles, both of which deal with this issue and will examine the purpose, content and goals of each author.

First Article - Content

In the first article, the author describes nuclear weapons testing in the United States. He states by stating the as the 1970's cane to an end, American that had become more and more educated started reevaluating nuclear policies, especially in the light of the Three Mile Island meltdown that had occurred, and which would soon result in a wide movement against nuclear weapons. Millson (2010) then describes the sicknesses that Americans had suffered as a result of the radiation, and the numerous trips to court in order to receive compensation for these harms. Millson (2010) also describes the arduous process through which these plaintiff had to go. He states,

"the process to receive compensation was difficult, and the plaintiffs had to produce evidence that their illnesses were caused by radiation. This was difficult to do because evidence was rare; and much of the evidence available favored nuclear testing. Reports from the AEC showed that testing was not harmful, the press covered the testing positively, and scientists were divided on the effects of radiation. NATO did a study on effects of radiation on humans and concluded that I-131 had a small effect on the thyroid, and that radiation is not likely a cause of leukemia." (Millson, 2010)

Despite this long, arduous, and often fruitless process, many persisted and eventually received compensation; however, these numbers are quite low. Despite the fact that, as a result of these complaints, Congress started regarding it as truly a concern, it did nothing to remedy the situation.

Finally, after two decades, Congress created the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which, according to Millson (2010) gave money to the following groups if evidence of radiation exposure was produced:

1. uranium miners,

2. employees who were related to the test site, and

3. "downwinders," or people who lived in the "downwind" direction of the test side.

However, according to Millson (2010), "downwind" compensation was low due to the fact that these individuals could not prove that they had been exposed, and the radiation that they had suffered could not be linked to cancer.

Purpose and Goal of the two articles

The content of both articles has been rendered and examined above. Now it is time to examine the purpose and goals of the articles. For example, the first article is clearly written in order to give the audience a succinct story about the facts. These facts include:

1. There is a problem,

2. People are suffering as a result of governmental carelessness,

3. People are suffering as a result of governmental ignorance of their problems, and

4. Something must be done to help these people.

In many ways, the first article serves as a somewhat objective wake-up call, which, I believe, is its goals. Perhaps its goal is also to frustrate the audience and push it towards finally taking acting and helping those who were affected by radiation.

However, it is also possible that this article seeks to actually propose a bigger agenda; namely, that this should not ever happen again, that nuclear weapons should be outlawed and that, without any doubt or arguments, those people who have been suffering physically, mentally and emotionally from nuclear tests in the West must be compensated, for their numbers are too great.

In contract with Millson's story, Williams seeks to provide a more emotional account. The first part of her story relates to her family and from a simple account, it transforms into an agenda that the author seeks to promote:

1. American must recognize the harm it did to all the families affected by nuclear fallout, and

2. America must compensate these families and never let such horrible things happen again.

By including both personal accounts and a string of dream sequences, Williams is able to persuade the reader to immerse himself into a world in which all things are very evident. In this case, the reader may be as angry and as frustrated, or as hurt as the author, and I believe the point is, as in the article above, for action.

Both Millson and Williams attempt to explain the same problem and achieve a solution to the problem, but they do this in different ways. Millson writes and article and Williams writes a story. Yet no matter what the medium, the point is clear: nuclear weapons are bad and they have hurt far too many American families. One can only hope that, one day, these weapons will be obliterated, for the is the only way they can do no more harm.

Articles Referenced:

Millson, C. (2010). Nuclear Weapons Testing in the United States: Sacrificing Health for National Defense. Student Pulse. < http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/535/2/nuclear-weapons-testing-in-the-united-states-sacrificing-health-for-national-defense>.

Williams, T.T. (2004). Clan of One-Breasted Women. NY: Busic Books. (resource provided by customer).