Nuclear Weapons Testing in the United States

¶ … 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.

Second Article - Content

In the second article, the story is much more personal, though just as sad. Here, Williams (2004) tells of the "one-breasted" women, or victims of breast cancer. She offers a more personal story of how breast cancer has impacted her family on the women's side, and states that the "fatty diets," becoming pregnant after 30, and many of the other supposed causes of cancer did not apply to her family, who had a good diet, did not drink, smoke, and finished having babies by the age of 30. However, she does note that her family had been living in Utah, and this, she calls "the greatest hazard of all."

Williams (2004) states that her family is not a cultural anomaly, but was unfortunate in the fact that it lived miles from where the Nevada above-ground atomic testing was taking place. Though unsubstantiated in this story, Williams (2004) notes that she was one of the "children growing up in the American Southwest, drinking contaminated milk from contaminated cows, even from the contaminated breasts of their mothers […] of the Clan of One-Breated Women," all of whom had suffered from the U.S. atomic testing that was being done in a race to beat the Soviet Union. Williams story is not in vain, but in fact proves, in its own way, whether part fiction or not, that nuclear testing had affected many families and this was a big problem, as cancer began to manifest itself and tear them apart more and more.

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: