Myths about Nuclear Weapons from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

 TEN MYTHS ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS
1. Nuclear weapons were needed to defeat Japan in World War II. This is not the opinion of many leading US military figures in the war. General Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World
War II and later US president, wrote, “I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’….”

2. Nuclear weapons prevented a war between the United States and the Soviet Union. There were many deadly conflicts and “proxy” wars carried out by the superpowers in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Vietnam War, which took several million lives, is a prominent example. These wars made the supposed nuclear peace very bloody and deadly.

3. Nuclear threats have gone away since the end of the Cold War. In the aftermath of the Cold War, a variety of new nuclear threats have emerged. Among these are the following dangers:
• Increased chances of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists willing to use them;
• Policies of the US government to make nuclear weapons smaller and more usable;
• Use of nuclear weapons by accident, particularly because of decaying Russian infrastructure; and
• Spread of nuclear weapons to other states that may perceive them to be an “equalizer” against a more powerful state.

4. The United States needs nuclear weapons for its national security. US national security would be far improved if the US took a leadership role in seeking to eliminate nuclear weapons throughout the world. Nuclear weapons are the only weapons that could actually destroy the United States, and their continued existence threatens US security.

5. Nuclear weapons make a country safer. By threatening massive retaliation, the argument goes, nuclear weapons prevent an attacker from starting a war. There are many ways, though, in which deterrence could fail, including misunderstandings, faulty communications, irrational leaders, miscalculations and accidents.

6. No leader would be crazy enough to actually use nuclear weapons. US leaders, considered by some to be highly rational, have used nuclear weapons in war, against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Threats of nuclear attack by India and Pakistan are an example of nuclear brinksmanship that could turn into a nuclear war. Globally and historically, leaders have done their best to prove that they would use nuclear weapons.

7. Nuclear weapons are a cost-effective method of national defense. The cost of US nuclear weapons research, development, testing, deployment and maintenance has exceeded $7.5 trillion.

8. Nuclear weapons are well protected and there is little chance that terrorists could get their hands on one. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the ability of the Russians to protect their nuclear forces has declined precipitously. In addition, a coup in a country with nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan, could lead to a government coming to power that was willing to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists.

9.The United States has worked to fulfill its nuclear disarmament obligations. The United States failed for nearly four decades to fulfill its obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, requiring good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Ways that President Obama can show leadership for nuclear disarmament include negotiating a strong replacement for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, pushing for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking nuclear weapons off of high alert status and adopting a
“No First Use” policy.

10. Nuclear weapons are needed to combat threats from terrorists and “rogue states.” The threat of nuclear force cannot act as a deterrent against terrorists because they do not have a territory to retaliate against. If the leaders of a rogue state do not use a rational calculus regarding their losses from retaliation, deterrence can fail.
Ten myths cited from:

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2009/09/facts_myths.pdf

Atomic/Nuclear Scientist

There were thousands of scientists, engineers, military and government officials involved in the production of nuclear weapons and atomic research during the mid ninteen-hundreds. In the following posts include: personal history of scientist or official - country, interesting info about the person, etc. Then focus on his/her specific research/actions/relationship with nuclear/atomic research. What did they do? Be specific and thorough so the reader obtains a real feel for and understanding of whom this person was and what they did!

Chemical Blog

There is no doubt that chemical compounds have had a tremendous impact on our Society in both positive and negative ways. The DOW chemical company motto, "Better living through chemistry" is both true and misleading. Modern medicines, food preservatives, fertilizers, plastics, etc, and dynamite, nerve gasses, Agent Orange, etc. and even common salt and sugar can have mostly positive or negative aspects. The purpose of this blog posting is to present one compound, for example, DDT, and explain how it has been used to help or harm society.

Hydraulic Fracturing or 'fracking'

Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is the process of extracting natural gas from shale rock layers deep within the earth. Fracking is now being done by numerous companies across the United States wherever there are large deposits of natural gas trapped in the deep-layer shale. This process has become controversial with both the proponents and opponents becoming more vocal. There are many articles, videos, films, studies, etc. now available pubically addressing this fracking process. Thousands of wells have been drilled which has affected many people across the country and those affected are begining to voice their problematical experiences while on the other hand many companies note the benefits of the process.

CA Proposition 37 Vote

Genetically Engineered (GE) Foods Labeling or CA Prop 37 will change the state law to require certain foods to be labeled GE. Arguments for and against as well as 'The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act' is included in the CA General Election pamphlet and is on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Cast your vote and give a supporting argument for your position.

Arts versus Science by Peter Dizikes

PETER DIZIKES Published: March 19, 2009 Few literary phrases have had as enduring an after¬life as “the two cultures,” coined by C. P. Snow to describe what he saw as a dangerous schism between science and literary life. Yet few people actually seem to read Snow’s book bearing that title. Why bother when its main point appears so evident? It was 50 years ago this May that Snow, an English physicist, civil servant and novelist, delivered a lecture at Cambridge called “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution,” which was later published in book form. Snow’s famous lament was that “the intellectual life of the whole of Western society is increasingly being split into two polar groups,” consisting of scientists on the one hand and literary scholars on the other. Snow largely blamed literary types for this “gulf of mutual incomprehension.” These intellectuals, Snow asserted, were shamefully unembarrassed about not grasping, say, the second law of thermodynamics — even though asking if someone knows it, he writes, “is about the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?” In the half-century since, “the two cultures” has become a “bumper-sticker phrase,” as NASA’s administrator, Michael Griffin, said in a 2007 speech. (Naturally, as a scientist, Griffin also declared that Snow had hit on an “essential truth.”) And Snow has certainly been enlisted in some unlikely causes. Writing in Newsweek in 1998, Robert Samuelson warned that our inability to take the Y2K computer bug more seriously “may be the ultimate vindication” of Snow’s thesis. (It wasn’t.) Some prominent voices in academia have also refashioned his complaint. “We live in a society, and dare I say a university, where few would admit — and none would admit proudly — to not having read any plays by Shakespeare,” Lawrence Summers proclaimed in his 2001 inaugural address as president of Harvard, adding that “it is all too common and all too acceptable not to know a gene from a chromosome.” This is Snow for the DNA age, complete with a frosty reception from the faculty. There is nothing wrong with referring to Snow’s idea, of course. His view that education should not be too specialized remains broadly persuasive. But it is misleading to imagine Snow as the eagle-eyed anthropologist of a fractured intelligentsia, rather than an evangelist of our technological future. The deeper point of “The Two Cultures” is not that we have two cultures. It is that science, above all, will keep us prosperous and secure. Snow’s expression of this optimism is dated, yet his thoughts about progress are more relevant today than his cultural typologies. After all, Snow’s descriptions of the two cultures are not exactly subtle. Scientists, he asserts, have “the future in their bones,” while “the traditional culture responds by wishing the future did not exist.” Scientists, he adds, are morally “the soundest group of intellectuals we have,” while literary ethics are more suspect. Literary culture has “temporary periods” of moral failure, he argues, quoting a scientist friend who mentions the fascist proclivities of Ezra Pound, William Butler Yeats and Wyndham Lewis, and asks, “Didn’t the influence of all they represent bring Auschwitz that much nearer?” While Snow says those examples are “not to be taken as representative of all writers,” the implication of his partial defense is clear. Snow’s essay provoked a roaring, ad hominem response from the Cambridge critic F. R. Leavis — who called Snow “intellectually as undistinguished as it is possible to be” — and a more measured one from Lionel Trilling, who nonetheless thought Snow had produced “a book which is mistaken in a very large way indeed.” Snow’s cultural tribalism, Trilling argued, impaired the “possibility of rational discourse.” Today, others believe science now addresses the human condition in ways Snow did not anticipate. For the past two decades, the editor and agent John Brockman has promoted the notion of a “third culture” to describe scientists — notably evolutionary biologists, psychologists and neuroscientists — who are “rendering visible the deeper meanings in our lives” and superseding literary artists in their ability to “shape the thoughts of their generation.” Snow himself suggested in the 1960s that social scientists could form a “third culture.” So why did Snow think the supposed gulf between the two cultures was such a problem? Because, he argues in the latter half of his essay, it leads many capable minds to ignore science as a vocation, which prevents us from solving the world’s “main issue,” the wealth gap caused by industrialization, which threatens global stability. “This disparity between the rich and the poor has been noticed . . . most acutely and not unnaturally, by the poor,” Snow explains, adding: “It won’t last for long. Whatever else in the world we know survives to the year 2000, that won’t.” (For some reason, Y2K predictions and Snow did not mix well.) Thus Snow, whose service in World War II involved giving scientists overseas assignments, recommends dispatching a corps of technologists to industrialize the third world. This brings “The Two Cultures” to its ultimate concern, which has less to do with intellectual life than with geopolitics. If the democracies don’t modernize undeveloped countries, Snow argues, “the Communist countries will,” leaving the West “an enclave in a different world.” Only by erasing the gap between the two cultures can we ensure wealth and self-government, he writes, adding, “We have very little time.” Some of this sounds familiar; for decades we have regarded science as crucial to global competitiveness, an idea invoked as recently as in Barack Obama’s campaign. But in other ways “The Two Cultures” remains irretrievably a cold war document. The path to industrialization that Snow envisions follows W. W. Rostow’s “take-off into sustained growth,” part of 1950s modernization theory holding that all countries could follow the same trajectory of development. The invocation of popular revolution is similarly date-stamped in the era of decolonization, as is the untroubled embrace of ¬government-dictated growth. “The scale of the operation is such that it would have to be a national one,” Snow writes. “Private industry, even the biggest private industry, can’t touch it, and in no sense is it a fair business risk.” This is, I think, why Snow’s diagnosis remains popular while his remedy is ignored. We have spent recent decades convincing ourselves that technological progress occurs in unpredictable entrepreneurial floods, allowing us to surf the waves of creative destruction. In this light, a fussy British technocrat touting a massive government aid project appears distinctly uncool. Yet “The Two Cultures” actually embodies one of the deepest tensions in our ideas about progress. Snow, too, wants to believe the sheer force of science cannot be restrained, that it will change the world — for the better — without a heavy guiding hand. The Industrial Revolution, he writes, occurred “without anyone,” including intellectuals, “noticing what was happening.” But at the same time, he argues that 20th-century progress was being stymied by the indifference of poets and novelists. That’s why he wrote “The Two Cultures.” So which is it? Is science an irrepressible agent of change, or does it need top-down direction? This question is the aspect of “The Two Cultures” that speaks most directly to us today. Your answer — and many different ones are possible — probably determines how widely and deeply you think we need to spread scientific knowledge. Do we need to produce more scientists and engineers to fight climate change? How should they be deployed? Do we need broader public understanding of the issue to support governmental action? Or do we need something else? Snow’s own version of this call for action, I believe, finally undercuts his claims. “The Two Cultures” initially asserts the moral distinctiveness of scientists, but ends with a plea for enlisting science to halt the spread of Communism — a concern that was hardly limited to those with a scientific habit of mind. The separateness of his two cultures is a very slippery thing. For all the book’s continuing interest, we should spend less time merely citing “The Two Cultures,” and more time genuinely reconsidering it.

Love Canal, Erin Brockovich, A Civil Action, Semper Fi

There have been many environmantal problems as a result of chemical waste disposal throughout the U. S. and these are just four examples.

Environmental Issues

DDT has been a very useful chemical in the past in the United States to fight bacteria and diseases in the war and other areas of the world in the past. It has such been tagged as a harmful pesticide doomed as a animal and nature killer after the wars. It has destructive properties that affect certain species of animals and wildlife when used in abundance. The misuse of this chemical has caused the resistance and contamination of a lot of worldwide wildlife. But from the point of view of a struggling disease ridden country such as in Africa, it is a great tool to have to fight malaria and other diseases in a cost effective way. It has opened the door for third world countries to fight the already drastically controlling diseases that plague their countries. I believe that the misuse of the chemical is the cause of environmental tragedies such as the silent spring. I see it as the same motto as, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". It is a common misconception to believe that all uses of DDT or other pesticides are bad because of few cases of chemical misuse in the past, but when used in the correct way to do more good than harm, then it is a wonderful tool to have to fight disease.

The CRAAP Test Worksheet & How to Validate a Website

HOW TO VALIDATE A WEBSITE

1. Go to www.google.com
2. In the window type
a. link:www.insert-URL-here.com
b. It can be a .com, .org, etc.
3. Look at the sites that link back to your site
4. Are they government or university sites? Are they sites that have good credibility?
5. Click on one of the sites and see how your link is used. Do they use it as an example of a biased site or are they citing it as a credible site? If the latter, then your site is a good source.


HOW TO FIND OUT WHO OWNS A WEBSITE

1. Go to www.betterwhois.com; http://www.internic.net/whois.html
2. In the search box, type your url
3. Click on go.
4. You may be asked to enter a code. If so, enter it and click go.
5. Look at the information. Does the info give you an indication of what the owner does and if it relates to the site? If the contact information has an email, check to see if it matches the website’s email address. If not, do the following (for example):
a. If the email address is mike@stormfront.org, take the stormfront.org and put a www in front of it: www.stormfront.org
b. Put that URL into your browser and see what happens. Is this site consistent with what you should expect to find?
6. Look at the address. Is it a PO Box? If so and it's a hospital, that should concern you. Think about it. Does it make sense?


HOW TO CHECK THE CREDENTIALS OF AN AUTHOR

This information is for when you have a university site. For example, if you found this URL (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/africa/africasbook.html), you would do the following:
1. Remove all but the main URL. For example,http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/africa/africasbook.html now becomeshttp://www.fordham.edu
2. In the Fordham University search box, enter the author’s name, which in this case is Paul Halsall.
3. Look through the links to find out if he is a professor or a student. Does his department match his site? In other words, is a history professor talking about history or is this an engineering professor talking about history?

• Good Islam site or bad?
• Is this capital punishment site credible?
• Neoperspectives
• abortion editorial
• immigration site
• immigration reform site
• Animal rights

• Is this the real World Trade Organization?
Using the CRAAP Test, decide if this is the real WTO.
• Is this the real WTO?
Using the CRAAP Test, decide if this is the real WTO.
• Is this a credible history journal?
Using the CRAAP test, figure out if this journal is credible or not.
• Is this a credible history journal?
Using the CRAAP test, figure out if this journal is credible or not.


The CRAAP Test Worksheet

Use the following list to help you evaluate sources. Answer the questions as appropriate, and then rank each of the 5 parts from 1
to 10 (1 = unreliable, 10 = excellent). Add up the scores to give you an idea of whether you should you use the resource (and
whether your professor would want you to!).

Currency: the timeliness of the information…………………………………………...................................

When was the information published or posted?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
Are the links functional?


Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs…………………………………………….

Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience?
Is the information at an appropriate level?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before choosing this one?
Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
Authority: the source of the information…………………………………................................................
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
Are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author's qualifications to write on the topic?
Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?


Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content…………….................................

Where does the information come from?
Is the information supported by evidence?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Can you verify any of the information in another source?
Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?


Purpose: the reason the information exists……………………………………………………………

What is the purpose of the information?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

Total:
45 - 50 Excellent | 40 - 44 Good
35 - 39 Average | 30 - 34 Borderline Acceptable
Below 30 - Unacceptable

TED Lecture

This blog posting is a critique of a TED lecture.

Nuclear/Radioactivity Issues in Japan

The future of nuclear power in the world may be determined by what happens in Japan in the near future. As the result of catastrophic events there all of the backup systems in the nuclear plants have failed causing radiation leakage from at least four reactors. There is no doubt that the outcome of this unfortunate event at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station will not be settled for some time. This issue truly demonstrates the close relationship between science and society.

Times of Triumph by Carlson - 2nd post

In the 1960s during the Vietnam War the chemical industry supplied the U. S. military herbicides to clear jungle areas. The chemical, Agent Orange, was one of the herbicides used. Forty years after Silent Spring was written, Carlson’s 2006 book, Times of Triumph, Times of Doubt, contains current information on the use of herbicides in peace and war. He notes that the government took a long time to acknowledge the detrimental effects of herbicides on U. S. veterans and the Vietnamese population. The ecological effects and ethical ramifications of herbicides are similar to DDT and even more so. Chemists working for the chemical companies were willing to apply their science to new uses that were determined with questionable ethical considerations. Motivated by an emerging industry that was now needed for Vietnam War applications, the chemical companies focused on producing herbicides.

In Times of Triumph, Times of Doubt by Elof Carlson

In Times of Triumph, Times of Doubt, Elof Carlson attempts to strike a compromise between the two views on Carson’s environmental concerns. One segment of society argues that man holds dominion over nature. Nature is to be tamed and used to satisfy societal needs. Chemists look at nature as a resource and attempt to control it for the benefit of society. Proponents of this view, readily clear-cut forests, dam rivers, over-fish oceans and rivers, pollute waters, gouge the earth for ores, focus on burning fossil fuels, and shoot and trap animals for sport. All of these activities claim benefits to society. Opposed to this view is the one that was publicized by Rachel Carson. She believed that nature and man exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. This view holds that science be used not only to benefit society, but also to act as a steward to protect and respect the natural world. The conservation movement resulted from this and view that parts of nature should be protected from over-commercialization by science and industry. The ethical use of natural resources must be balanced with the needs of society supplied by science and technology. Carlson notes this view is championed by Native Americans in their religious traditions and the efforts of others like Henry David Thoreau, John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt. (pages 117-118)

Fluorine in water in the United States

The use of fluorine in the water supply in the United States has been debated for years. This posting deals with the following facts/questions/issues related to that use:

1. Involves the “History of the Use” of Fluorine in the US in water up till the present time.

2. Deals with the reasons why we “Should Start Using Fluorine in water” in the US. An argument against those who believe we should not.

3. Discusses the reasons why we “should NOT start using Fluorine in water” in the US. An argument against those who believe we should.

4. Covers the “Biological Effects that Fluorine in water has had on people/environment” since it was discovered. What are other options?

5. Notes the Chemistry/Science of Fluorine. Who discovered it - When, Where, include the formula and note the chemistry. How it works in toothpaste, etc.

Exposed by Mark Schaprio

Mark Schapiro’s book, Exposed, The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power focuses on the misuse of chemicals today. He explains the different approach in regulating chemicals in the U. S. and the European Union, and how the two assess risk differently for their societies. The Europeans assess inherent toxicity based on evidence, and if a chemical is determined to potentially cause harm, it is prevented from being used. Americans require conclusive scientific evidence of toxic exposure before acting. The European approach is precautionary, while the U. S. approach is to wait until after a problem has already been documented. The result is that many chemicals banned in Europe are used in the U. S. Public concern is increasing over the potentially toxic effects of chemicals in hundreds of creams, lotions, shampoos, lip sticks, nail polishes, etc. Schapiro notes that the average American adult is exposed to over one hundred chemicals from personal-care products daily. (page 22). He writes:
Every morning across America, tens of millions of women apply from twelve to twenty ‘personal-care’ products to themselves, according to the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA). From tubes and bottles and delicate brushes come the tools of beauty, hygiene, and self-preservation know as cosmetics. American women might assume that somebody has been watching to ensure that potential toxins in those ingredients are kept away from intimate contact with the body’s largest organ, the skin. They would be wrong. (page 25)
Society assumes the government is a protector but its job is oversight, having minimal authority to regulate the chemicals in cosmetics.
Schapiro writes:
While the U. S. regulators are impelled to seek a scientifically improbable smoking gun – evidence that comes when disaster actually strikes [with toxic chemicals] – their European counterparts act on the principle of preventing harm before it happens, even in the face of scientific uncertainty. (page 52)
The Europeans do not wait until there is 100% certainty that a chemical is toxic. By the time there is definitive proof it could be too late. This is an example of applying ethics to a risk scenario rather than waiting for the sword of Damocles to fall. Ironically, there are a few examples where a drug, specifically thalidomide, was sold in Europe but banned in the U. S.
Plastic softeners called ‘phthalates’ are used everywhere in toys, bottles, raincoats, perfumes, shower curtains, medical tubing, car dashboards, and even rubber ducks. When plastics age the phthalates vaporize and come in direct contact with the skin. The new smell in cars is an example. The most commonly used phthalate has the chemical name di(2ethylhexyl) phthalate, DEHP, and the formula, C24H38O4.
It has been banned by The European Union because of the potential to cause sexual malformations in young boys. The Merck Index of chemicals notes: “This substance may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen.” (#1262 page 1256).Schapiro also indicates there is evidence that there is some association between phthalates exposure and male genital development. (page 45). Currently, there is increasing pressure to get phthalates banned in the U. S. due to probable toxicity.
Obviously there are thousands of chemicals which are truly beneficial having seen no detrimental effects. These chemicals have helped society in countless ways and chemists are responsible for the discovery or synthesis and application of them. Unfortunately, there are many that have been cited that do cause problems to society and the environment. With the advent of new technology and testing it may be possible to better screen out those chemicals that have the potential to do harm and substitute others or more natural ways to address a need. The balance between the need for certain chemical applications and the good of society are not mutually exclusive.

The DDT Controversy

The use of DDT continues to be a contentious issue today. There is no better issue demonstrating the need for balance between the good and bad outcomes from science on society than the one surrounding DDT. Thomas Easton’ book, Taking Sides, Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society addresses the positive and negative effects of the use of DDT by the chemical industry. The application of science to benefit society is clearly evident in the use of DDT to eradicate disease. Up to World War II more soldiers died from disease than enemy fire. The incident of malaria and other diseases were reduced dramatically from hundreds of thousands of deaths to few numbers due directly to the use of DDT. Whether DDT is helpful or harmful became, and still is, debated. In Easton’s book Ann Platt McGinn argues, in the May/June 2002 World Watch, to continue the ban on DDT and is an advocate for alternate controls of malaria and other diseases by using means that are less environmentally harmful. Donald Roberts argues in a statement before the U. S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, that scientific evidence does not support the continued ban of DDT. He indicates that the environmental hazards of DDT have been misrepresented by anti-pesticide activists. Further, the use of DDT can prevent what some consider a global humanitarian disaster from malaria.

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson

‘Better living through chemistry’ has been a well known motto for the Dow Chemical Company and the chemistry industry for many years. The positive effect of chemicals around the world is evident in combating disease, eradicating dangerous pests, providing medicine for acute and chronic illnesses, supplying industry with raw materials, etc. There is a daily consumption of chemicals in foods, pharmaceuticals, water, and the air we breathe. Chemicals are used in common home products as soaps, cleaners, shampoos, lipstick, preservatives, plastics, fabrics, building materials, gardening applications, paints, furniture, and many more. No one would argue that society has benefited from chemicals researched and developed by the chemical industry. In ways too numerous to note society has, in fact, had better living through chemistry. Unfortunately, some chemicals used by society in many ways, also have negative effects. Just as with nuclear energy, the chemistry industry has its downside. With victory in World War II the U. S. society gave science, and including chemistry, a blank check to produce whatever the scientists believed would be beneficial. Just as nuclear bombs destroyed our enemy, chemists were busy at work destroying insect pests in agriculture and attacking human illness. Chemists were caught in the same dichotomy as physicists who produced military weapons. Their basic research ultimately had side-effects which led to destruction. A striking similarity exists with physicists by chemists by also being part of the post-war-industrial-complex. As a result of war time science, there were in place chemical processes that were adapted to a peaceful society. After the war instead of making nerve gas, TNT bombs, ammunition, detonators, and many other chemicals used for war, chemists turned attention to control of the environment. For almost twenty years chemists produced thousands of tons of insecticides and herbicides. The explosive use of these agents went unchecked and unregulated for years.

In 1962 Rachel Carson started a quiet revolution against the chemical industry with her book Silent Spring. Up to that time chemists activities went mostly unquestioned. However, Carson coupled the chemical industry’s focus on profits and disregard for public welfare, with the government’s lack of control and regulation. The field of ecology was born with an emphasis on, not just the science, but the ethical and moral obligation of science to preserve the planet. The issue that Carson attacked first was the widespread use of DDT and pesticides. DDT was the most successful pesticide used to save countless lives. Carson believed the explosive use of chemicals to kill pests, eradicate disease, defoliate, and pollute via spraying was as effective as nuclear bomb radiation. It was an assault on nature. In an attempt to control nature the chemical industry was contaminating the environment resulting in a threat to living organisms including people. Carson writes:
For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception to the moment of death. In the less than two decades in their use, the synthetic pesticides have been so thoroughly distributed throughout the animate and inanimate world that they occur virtually everywhere… They have entered and lodged in the bodies of fish, birds, reptiles, and domestic and wild animals so universally… and man himself…All this has come about because of the sudden rise and prodigious growth of an industry for the production of man-made or synthetic chemicals with insecticidal properties. (pages 15-16)

Carson was the first to note the problem with this ubiquitous use of chemicals. The potential biological potency of DDT and other chemicals being mass produced was put on notice. Chemists now were made to face their own environmental fallout. Were the chemicals in pesticides and DDT harmful to birds and animals resulting truly in a silent spring? There was an attempt to discredit Carson and her book by the chemical industry. She was branded as emotional, and the book a diatribe by an unhappy woman. Science and society had again apparently collided. Ethical, environmental, and economic facets of this issue were forced into the open. Were the chemists responsible for chemical abuses just as the physicists? Or was the problem the development, and application of the chemicals by an industry that was motivated by economics. This situation may also be considered one that does not pit science against society since the two are so intertwined in terms of research and development on the one hand, and defining appropriate use of the chemicals on the other. What may be required as a solution is more of a holistic ownership of science where both science and society work together for the maximum benefit and minimum harm to society. Applied research must be coupled more directly with the effects that will be thrust upon society as a result of the application of the science. In this case, the use of chemicals and their effect on society, including the environment, as a whole was not considered. The need to combine applied science with outcomes on society is paramount. Carson extended the definition of society to include the planet and all living things. Perhaps the time has come where the goals or outcomes of science (here I speak of applied not basic research) and the effects on society have to be considered equally important. Up to the writing of Silent Spring the separation between the chemicals produced by science and the results on the world were separate and distinct.

The chemistry behind DDT and other pesticides is rooted in the branch of science called organic chemistry. Organic chemistry is based on chains of carbon atoms with other elements attached as a functional group that determines the chemical properties. For example, the formula for DDT, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane’ is C14H9Cl5. This molecule was synthesized in 1874 and its potent use as an insecticide was discovered by Paul Muller in 1939. (The Merck Index, page 2829). The litany of pesticide chemicals that are dusts, sprays, and aerosols have intimidating names: dieldrin, aldrin, parathion, malathion, pentachlorophenol, methoxychlor, phenothiazine, etc. and all are noted in Carson’s book. Her work was the initial salvo as an indictment against unchecked chemical pollution on the environment that resulted in government regulation and the birth of the environmental movement in the U. S. Carson details the dangerous effect of chemical herbicides on ecosystems and society.
The ‘control of nature’ is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy, when it was supposed that nature exists for the convenience of man. The concepts and practices of applied entomology for the most part date from that Stone Age of science. It is our alarming misfortune that so primitive a science has armed itself with the most modern and terrible weapons, and that in turning them against the insects, it has also turned them against the earth. (page 297)

What Darwin Never Knew - PBS DVD

NOVA explores scientific evidence from DNA that supports Darwin's theory of evolution. How the staggering variety of animals may have resulted - 1.4 million different species - and how some evolved over time is noted. Comparison in embryonic development and genetic switches and genes are some of the processes discussed. "What actually drives evolution and turns one species into another?" is considered. NOVA shows how scientists are starting to "crack natures biggest secrets" via experimentation on numerous species. The results of this mountain of scientific evidence continue to confirm Darwin's theory by revealing clues in the diversity of life.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science by Tom Bethell

Tom Bethell writes in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science chapters titled, By Chance or By Design?, and Evolution, The Missing Evidence... He presents some of the controversial issues surrounding Darwin's theory of evolution. Some consider this book a 'dose of realism' while others would find his statements 'blatantly biased'.

Pandas and People by Davis & Kenyon

Of Pandas and People, the Central Question of Biological Origins, by Davis and Kenyon is the text book that some members of the Dover, PA School Board attempted, to make available as a reference book, as part of the ninth-grade biology curriculum in Dover High School. The Board voted against the use of the supplemental text; however, the Dover Superintendent and his assistant went to every ninth-grade classroom and read the following statement (in part):
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origins of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. (God or Gorilla, page 161).

In Of Pandas and People, Hartwig and Meyer write in A Note to Teachers:
In sum, then, only in the most trivial sense- change over time- can evolution be considered a fact. Far from being a legitimate reason for avoiding alternative views, the alleged ‘fact of evolution’ underscores precisely why a book like Pandas is so necessary. If students are to achieve true scientific literacy, they must learn to distinguish fact from supposition. A curriculum that blurs this distinction serves neither the students nor society. (page 157). Hence, when investigating the origin of the living world, it may be perfectly acceptable- depending on the evidence- to hypothesize an intelligent designer. (page 159).

In 2004 eleven parents represented by the PA ACLU filed suit where Judge John Jones III presided in Harrisburg, PA.

Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

Biologists face similar societal successes and dilemmas as physicists and chemists. Biologists must also deal with ethical and moral issues resulting from the application of their basic research. There is no doubt that tremendous discoveries made in biology have been wonderfully beneficial to society; however, some have a downside just as atomic weapons, radiation, nuclear waste, and chemicals which have harmful effects or pollute the environment.

Biologists and biochemists are responsible for breakthroughs in fields of cellular biology, cancer, stem cell and cloning research, etc. Life spans have dramatically increased; cures for new diseases are continually being discovered, and infant mortality has dropped over the years. These are a few of the hundreds of examples of the benefits to society due to the biological sciences. As with science in general, biological issues must also address moral and ethical consequences that are potentially detrimental. Many political, ethical, and even religious issues today are related to biological science and research. Human cloning, using embryo tissue for stem cells, the evolution debate, and genetically engineered foods are examples that result in science affecting society with both positive and negative potential.

No issue better exemplifies the complex relationship between the science of biology and
society than evolution. Darwin’s theory is one of the basic tenants of the biological sciences. The theory of evolution is defined in The Origin of Species and is one of the fundamental building blocks upon which the credibility of biology is built. Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life published in 1859, is considered one of the major books of Western civilization.

Controversy has surrounded Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution from its writing and has continued for almost one and a half centuries. His seminal work has been opposed, supported, damned, made into movies, debated, decided via legal battle, questioned, believed, and little understood by many. The fact that Darwin’s book seems more easily readable to the general public than a physics equation, chemical reaction, or math-based theorem, is deceiving because of Darwin’s complex discussions. Even Darwin struggled to clearly present his theory as is noted by his numerous changes in the six editions of the book. He writes:
That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavored to give them full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely … The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed. (page 362)

Darwin’s truth was questioned from the beginning by naturalists during his time and is still being questioned by many people today. Many argue the theory of evolution is just a theory! Is this the start of a movement that could potentially result in questioning the validity of science in general? An entire culture of anti-evolutionists has ‘evolved’ to refute Darwin advocating creationism and/or intelligent design.

Evolution has been addressed recently by the legal system in Dover, Pennsylvania to determine if intelligent design should be taught in high school courses along with the theory of evolution. The school board of Dover attempted to make the pro intelligent design text, Of Pandas and People part of the high school curriculum. In Kansas the school system pushed for similar treatment of both ideas – evolution and intelligent design - in the schools. Proponents of intelligent design claim that their theory has as much relevance as the theory of evolution. Islamic scholar, Harun Yahya (pen name), in his book, The Evolution Deceit, presents arguments opposing evolution. His argument is solely based on creationism. The editor of American Spectator, Tom Bethell agrees with anti-evolutionists in his writing “By Chance or By Design”. If you Google books that are anti-evolution scores of texts will appear with little searching. Oppositely, books like Evolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie Scott and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins as well as many other pro-evolution texts can easily be found. It is ubiquitously stated that approximately half of the population does not believe that the theory of evolution is accurate and factual.

This section of the course will begin with the main tenants of Darwin’s theory of evolution from The Origin of Species in his own words, and in much detail, to present an accurate a picture as possible. The reader must realize that volumes and volumes have been written on this topic so note that the effort here is only to give an introduction to this controversial topic. Darwin begins to define his theory based on what can be readily observed via domesticated breeding of animals. He writes:
May not those naturalists who, knowing far less of the laws of inheritance than does the breeder, and knowing no more than he does of the intermediate links in the long lines of descent, yet admit that many of our domestic races have descended from the same parents – may they not learn a lesson of caution, when they deride the idea of a species in a state of nature being lineal descendants of other species? (page 34)

In discussing the manner breeders use by avoiding cross breeding to obtain a good pedigree Darwin writes:
If selection consisted merely in separating some very distinct variety, and breeding from it, the principle would be so obvious as hardly to be worth notice; but its importance consists in the great effect produced by the accumulation in one direction, during successive generations, of differences absolutely inappreciable by and uneducated eye… (page 36)

Darwin ends his discussion of the chapter, Variation under Domestication,by stating:
Over all these causes of Change I am convinced that the accumulative action of Selection, whether applied methodically and more quickly, or unconsciously and more slowly, but more efficiently, is by far the predominant Power. (page 45)

In discussing his chapter, Variation under Nature, he writes:
Hence, it is the most flourishing, or, as they may be called, the dominant species, - those which range widely over the world, are the most diffused in their own country, and are the most numerous in individuals, - which oftenest produce well- marked varieties, or, as I consider them, incipient species. And this, perhaps, might have been anticipated; for, as varieties, in order to become in any degree permanent, necessarily have to struggle with the other inhabitants of the country, the species which are already dominant will be the most likely to yield offspring which, though in some degree slight degree modified, will still inherit those advantages that enable their parents to become dominant over their compatriots. (page 53)

Ending the discussion of natural variation Darwin writes:
We have, also, seen that it is the most flourishing and dominant species of the larger genera which on an average vary most; and varieties, as we shall hereafter see, tend to become converted into new and distinct species. The larger genera thus tend to become larger; and throughout nature the forms of life which are now dominant then to become more dominant by leaving many modified and dominant descendants. (page 57-58)

Darwin discusses the struggle to exist in terms of dependence, survival, and leaving progeny. He writes:
A corollary of the highest importance may be deduced from the foregoing remarks, namely, that the structure of every organic being is related, in the most essential yet often hidden manner, to that of all other organic beings, with which it comes into competition for food or residence, or from which it has to escape, or on which it preys… that each organic being is striving to increase at a geometrical ratio… and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.(page 72-73)

Darwin called the “preservation of favorable variations and the rejection of injurious variations,” Natural Selection. (page 75) The best adapted to their environment and most vigorous survive. He writes:
Natural selection, also, leads to divergence of character; for more living beings can be supported on the same area the more they diverge in structure, habits, and constitution, of which we see proof by looking at the inhabitants of any small spot or at naturalized productions… Natural selection leads to divergence of character and to much extinction of the less improved and intermediate forms of life. (page 112)

Darwin uses his design of the Tree of Life to show the progression of natural selection with many branches representing a long succession of extinct species, known to us only in the fossil state, while other branches grow, bear other branches, and show the current surviving species.

Risk Assessment Issue (related to Cousteau's pdf)

Risk assessment is part of every decision to apply scientific discovery to society. Cousteau notes this in his comments on risk analysis about placing nuclear waste in the oceans. Two other examples recently noted are:Should the Italian government permit drilling into the super caldera near Naples? The article reviewed gives the pros and cons of this risky action. The second, should the US government use the salt mine 100 miles North of Las Vegas for a nuclear repository for spent nuclear fuel from around the country? There are two opposing positions to this action as well. (Also covered was the chapter on Public Risk in Cousteau’s book via a pdf file.

Questions re: Presidential Powers & Manhattan on a Mesa by Joy Hakim

Ever since dropping the atom bomb over fifty years ago the debate continues over the many questions related to that world-changing event. Here are just a few:

1. Was President Truman correct in deciding to drop two bombs on Japan without giving the Japanese people a warning? Explain both sides of this issue.
2. Were the scientists at Los Alamos guilty of letting the US Military take too much control over the Manhattan Project? Explain in detail.
3. Could the arms race that resulted in thousands of atomic bombs being produced have been avoided, and how? Give details.
4. Since the hydrogen bomb is exponentially more powerful than the atomic bomb of what use is it, and should it have been produced?
5. Should the scientists at Los Alamos have stopped working on the bomb for ethical/moral reasons?
6. Did Pearl Harbor justify the use of the atomic bomb? Or did something else justify it?
7. Do science, government and the military work together for the common good of the country?
8. Historical comments from a Japanese family.
9. Assess the current situation with Iran's nuclear policy and the status of International talks to deal with this situation.
10. Explain in detail the difference between how a nuclear bomb works and a nuclear power plant works.
11. Give a detailed analysis of the benefits and problems of using nuclear power - include info about San Onofre power plant.
12. Give detailed  historical info on the accident at Fukushima, Japan nuclear plant and the present status of cleaning up the radiation.
13. Give a detailed historical account of the national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain and its current status, problems, etc.
14. Investigate the Three Mile Island nuclear accident and give an account of why it happened, what was done, and the current status. Give details.
15. Discuss the current world nuclear non-proliferation treaty. What is being done and how successful is it?
16. Explain what a dirty-bomb is, how easy it would be to make one, and what are the obstacles that would have to be overcome.
17. Explain some other positive uses (non-military, ex. medical) that have resulted from the nuclear industry.
18. Investigate the first major nuclear reactor accident in Cernobyl in Russia. What happened and what is the current status?

The Story of Science (Fission Vision) by Joy Hakim

The scientist who led the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos, New Mexico during the 1940’s, was Robert Oppenheimer who worked with the many Nobel Prize winning scientists, many of whom came from Great Britain, Hungary, and Germany. Ironically, Oppenheimer never won a Nobel even though he was the director over many who had. The list of scientists who worked in Los Alamos is a ‘whose who’ in science at the time. In spite of the world-wide notoriety of all of the scientists involved, the U. S. government had total control of the scientists and the project. This government control of science was probably the beginning of what is now called the military-industrial complex. Perhaps a better name is the military-science complex. The scientists who moved to Los Alamos were totally isolated, could only get mail at Post Office Box 1663, and could only leave the project location with a written pass via a guard station. The extreme control by the military, many people believed was justified because of the dangers of espionage (which ultimately occurred).

As the scientific events unfolded that led to the explosion of the first test atomic bomb in New Mexico, World War II was raging in Europe and the Pacific. There was also the illusion of a race for nuclear power between the U. S. allies and Germany. It was an illusion because German scientists gave up the attempt to build an atomic bomb, but the scientists at Los Alamos had no idea of this. In fact, there was a race to build a bomb with only one side participating, the United States and allied scientists. During this project the purpose of the science was clear – to make a bomb. There was no other reason for the massive undertaking other than a military weapon. Governments and scientists were caught up in a struggle involving political ideology, and using scientific discovery to produce a weapon. These events occurred during World War II. The ethics of building a bomb versus a patriotic/national struggle was occurring within the scientific community itself. Einstein originally influenced President Roosevelt to start the Manhattan Project, and a later he attempted to stop it. Einstein obviously failed. Many other scientists were in a similar position. The ethics of building a weapon of mass destruction hung like a modern sword of Damocles over most of the scientific community involved in this project. That sword fell on the morning of August 6, 1945 when the Enola Gay dropped a uranium bomb over Hiroshima.

Joy Hakim presents a comprehensive overview of the development of nuclear energy in her book, The Story of Science, Einstein Adds A New Dimension. Hakim details scientific discoveries based on the work of Albert Einstein, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr, Marie Curie, Frederic Joliot-Curie, Leo Szilard, and many other scientists; continuing with the discovery of fission in 1938 by Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann, and Otto Frisch and leading to more discoveries by Enrico Fermi, Robert Oppenheimer, Edward Teller, and numerous other scientists. Discussion of the political situation during World War II as related to these scientific events is also included. Coverage of the basic science of fission of uranium using heavy water leading up to the Manhattan Project and development of the atomic bomb is included in Hakim’s book.

The Human, The Orchid, and The Octopus by Jacques Cousteau

In Jacques Cousteau’s book The Human, The Orchid, and The Octopus, public risk is discussed on a broad based scale. As has already been noted, basic science discoveries almost always leads to applied science where decisions are made based on risk versus reward. What is now noted is a new branch in this complex web in the relationship between science and society – risk assessment. Admittedly, the scenario presented here is oversimplified, but will give the general idea. A scientist initiates the process of giving society the facts of something new via discovery, the second phase is where the basic discovery is used for some sort of application useful to society, but may contain unknown potential problems. Now a third part of the scenario comes into play. Since there may be both benefit and risk to society by using this newly applied scientific discovery there is now a need to assess the risk of actually using it. An example of this is nuclear power (which will be dealt with in more detail later). The basic science behind nuclear power was begun with the discovery of fission. Now fast-foreword to the application of this in building nuclear power reactors to produce energy. As with most scientific discoveries there is a downside to its utilization, in this case spent fuel; thus the need to assess or manage the risk. Risk assessment is part of all scientific endeavors, to assess potential negative byproducts like nuclear accidents, chemical spills, unproven pharmaceuticals, potential lethal virus exposure, etc. Scientific risk assessment is always part of the science-to-society process. Thorough analysis of potentially harmful outcomes are evaluated and defined by what science has defined as the field of risk assessment. If something can potentially go wrong this potential will have been analyzed, categorized, and quantified. This field of risk management was born of a good idea to keep science and technology on a path for the protection of society. However, Cousteau presents copious examples of how good intentions can lead to questionable results. He writes:
In legend, Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, purposely undermines his peoples’ sense of safety and security by tying a naked sword to a horsehair and suspending it above the head of Damocles. We sit beneath Damocles sword that our leaders seem to manufacture by chain production.” (pages 92-93)
Cousteau writes “The pure scientist discovers the universe. The applied scientist exploits existing scientific discoveries to create useable products.” (page 181) The difference is that one is an explorer and the other a prospector. At what point is the explorer, the pure scientist, responsible to foresee the future direction of the exploration and become aware of coming danger? The time-lag between discovery and application has shrunk dramatically since the time of Galileo, Bacon, and Descartes, etc. to Einstein, Bohr, and Teller, etc., and even more today. In addition, political influence has become so influential that Cousteau compares, for example, the military to puppeteers and the scientist, puppets. This take-over of science by the military is not totally new; however, it went to a new level during the development of the atomic bomb in World War II. A military-industrial-complex arose and forced science to work in secrecy. The military and industry essentially controlled science with funding. In 1963 the US government drastically reduced funding for basic research without direct military application, and since private funding was almost exclusively used for applied research, the nature of science especially in the U. S. changed. (page 192). There is no doubt that the results of science have been greatly beneficial as well as harmful and continued benefits will rest on the ability of many non-scientists in society to understand and incorporate complex issues by non-scientists who make the decisions which affect society. Just as science attempts not only to know, but to control nature, society attempts to control science. The paramount issue is that critical thinking by society can only come about by a scientific literate one.