4 ms·

This was obviously before they understood that radioactive fallout was an issue with nukes.

pmoriarty 4y ago
No, they already knew about the dangers of fallout. "the AEC established Project Plowshare amid growing public and political opposition to nuclear programs. Nuclear tests routinely produced unacceptably high levels of fallout, and the subsequent appearance in drinking water, milk, meat, and produce of strontium-90, cesium-137, and other cancer-causing radioactive elements had generated a movement demanding a worldwide ban on airborne nuclear tests." But "the AEC believed the region [in Alaska where the harbor would be created with nukes] to be an uninhabited Arctic wasteland." "Environmental scientists, as well as many Alaskan locals, were not sold. They doubted AEC estimates that a bomb crater harbor would be handling $176 million in annual exports within 25 years. Cape Thompson adjoined large deposits of coal and oil, but it also was iced in nine months out of every 12." "And the cape was only 30 miles south of Point Hope, an Inuit village whose residents subsisted on the region’s abundant wildlife. Irked by critics, Teller vented to economist George Rogers, "We are not interested in preserving the Eskimo as a hunter. We are interested in giving him the opportunity of becoming a coal miner.""[1] [1] - https://www.historynet.com/an-explosive-plan-to-use-atoms-for-peace/ https://www.historynet.com/an-explosive-plan-to-use-atoms-fo...
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  > "We are not interested in preserving the Eskimo as a hunter. We are interested in giving him the opportunity of becoming a coal miner." Wow and they say old times were better lol They were so careless with nature and people
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    You're only saying that because of the political baggage that surrounds treatment of native Americans and coal mining and the way we view those things today. The premise that a big infrastructure project will create a bunch of economic opportunity in the local area and people will be better off for it is not a controversial one.
    - pmoriarty 4y ago
      "The premise that a big infrastructure project will create a bunch of economic opportunity in the local area and people will be better off for it is not a controversial one." It certainly is controversial. Some look at this process as economic opportunity, others as indentured servitude and exploitation. There's been a long and sad history of such developments leaving the areas where it happens a polluted, barren carcass.
gambiting 4y ago
There was never a time when anyone involved in these projects didn't take fallout into account. The thing is that fallout is something that can be controlled(to an extent). You can make a nuke that produces a lot of it, or a nuke that produces hardly any. Also(understandably) you don't get any fallout for underground explosions - we've used nukes for closing oil wells for instance, with zero environmental contamination outside of the initial blast zone. That's not me saying that this is a good idea of course. But it's not like fallout wasn't planned for.
trimbo 4y ago
One of Plowshare's proponents was Edward Teller. Teller designed the bomb that was tested as Castle Bravo. Castle Bravo's yield was far above expected and was a fallout disaster that was known at the time[1]. Castle Bravo was in 1954. He began to push for for Plowshare in the late 50s. Here he is in 1965 advocating for it.[2] Read "The Firecracker Boys" if you are interested in a lot more detail.[3] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_levels_of_fallout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_levels_of_fa... [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-IqOHDr_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-IqOHDr_k [3] - https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Firecracker_Boys.html?id=0C59HAAACAAJ https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Firecracker_Boys.ht...

No, they already knew about the dangers of fallout. "the AEC established Project Plowshare amid growing public and political opposition to nuclear programs. Nuclear tests routinely produced unacceptably high levels of fallout, and the subsequent appearance in drinking water, milk, meat, and produce of strontium-90, cesium-137, and other cancer-causing radioactive elements had generated a movement demanding a worldwide ban on airborne nuclear tests." But "the AEC believed the region [in Alaska where the harbor would be created with nukes] to be an uninhabited Arctic wasteland." "Environmental scientists, as well as many Alaskan locals, were not sold. They doubted AEC estimates that a bomb crater harbor would be handling $176 million in annual exports within 25 years. Cape Thompson adjoined large deposits of coal and oil, but it also was iced in nine months out of every 12." "And the cape was only 30 miles south of Point Hope, an Inuit village whose residents subsisted on the region’s abundant wildlife. Irked by critics, Teller vented to economist George Rogers, "We are not interested in preserving the Eskimo as a hunter. We are interested in giving him the opportunity of becoming a coal miner.""[1] [1] - https://www.historynet.com/an-explosive-plan-to-use-atoms-for-peace/ https://www.historynet.com/an-explosive-plan-to-use-atoms-fo...

GekkePrutser 4y ago
> "We are not interested in preserving the Eskimo as a hunter. We are interested in giving him the opportunity of becoming a coal miner." Wow and they say old times were better lol They were so careless with nature and people
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  You're only saying that because of the political baggage that surrounds treatment of native Americans and coal mining and the way we view those things today. The premise that a big infrastructure project will create a bunch of economic opportunity in the local area and people will be better off for it is not a controversial one.
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    "The premise that a big infrastructure project will create a bunch of economic opportunity in the local area and people will be better off for it is not a controversial one." It certainly is controversial. Some look at this process as economic opportunity, others as indentured servitude and exploitation. There's been a long and sad history of such developments leaving the areas where it happens a polluted, barren carcass.

gambiting 4y ago

There was never a time when anyone involved in these projects didn't take fallout into account. The thing is that fallout is something that can be controlled(to an extent). You can make a nuke that produces a lot of it, or a nuke that produces hardly any. Also(understandably) you don't get any fallout for underground explosions - we've used nukes for closing oil wells for instance, with zero environmental contamination outside of the initial blast zone. That's not me saying that this is a good idea of course. But it's not like fallout wasn't planned for.

trimbo 4y ago

One of Plowshare's proponents was Edward Teller. Teller designed the bomb that was tested as Castle Bravo. Castle Bravo's yield was far above expected and was a fallout disaster that was known at the time[1]. Castle Bravo was in 1954. He began to push for for Plowshare in the late 50s. Here he is in 1965 advocating for it.[2] Read "The Firecracker Boys" if you are interested in a lot more detail.[3] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_levels_of_fallout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_levels_of_fa... [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-IqOHDr_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-IqOHDr_k [3] - https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Firecracker_Boys.html?id=0C59HAAACAAJ https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Firecracker_Boys.ht...