再稼働に賛成 女川町議会が採択 via NHK News Web

[…]

東北電力が再稼働を目指す女川原発2号機をめぐっては、地元の女川町や石巻市、それに県が、再稼働に同意するかが最大の焦点となっています。
これについて、女川町議会の委員会は、先月19日、再稼働に反対する立場の住民から出された請願を退ける一方、賛成する立場の住民から出された陳情を賛成多数で採択しました。
これを受けて、7日、開かれた定例会で、委員会の判断が報告されたあと、採決が行われ、再稼働に賛成する立場の住民から出された陳情が採択されました。
一方で、反対の立場の住民から出された請願は退けられ、町議会として正式に再稼働を容認する姿勢を示しました。
これを受けて、須田町長は、地元自治体としての最終的な判断を示すことにしています。
議会のあと、須田町長は、記者団に対して、「意思表示するにあたって、原発の安全性と住民理解の2つの基礎は確認できた。今後、国や事業者と会うなどして私自身の最終的な結論を検討していく」と話していました。
村井知事は、「立地自治体において、女川原発2号機の再稼働を求める意思を表明するものであり、重みのある決定であると考えている。県は、今後、女川町長をはじめとする県内の市町村長や、県民の代表である県議会の意見をしっかりと聞き、再稼働について総合的に判断していく」というコメントを出しました。

全文

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

広島・長崎の1500倍…ロシアが史上最大の核爆発の映像を公開 via Business Insider

何十年もの間、歴史上最も強力な核兵器は極秘事項だった。

現在、ロシアは、正式にはRDS-220、非公式にはツァーリ・ボンバ(Tsar Bomba)として知られる水素爆弾の爆発に至るまでの経緯を公開している。

ロシアは8月20日、同国の原子力産業75周年を記念して、アメリカとの核開発競争が激化していた1961年10月30日、北極海の孤島で行われたツァーリ・ボンバの実験のドキュメンタリー映像を機密解除した。

YouTubeにアップされた40分間の動画は、広島と長崎の原爆を合わせたものの約1500倍の威力を持つ爆発の様子を映し出している。ロシアは、この爆発の際の閃光が1000km以上離れた場所から見ることができたとしている。

[…]

ソビエト連邦のニキータ・フルシチョフ(Nikita Khrushchev)首相が個人的にこの兵器の開発を依頼したことから、ツァーリ・ボンバは彼の愛称で呼ばれた。フルシチョフは当初、アメリカが開発したものをはるかに上回る100メガトン級の兵器の製造を計画していたが、ロシアの科学者たちは、放射性降下物があまりにも破滅的であることを恐れ、ツァーリ・ボンバは当初の予定よりも威力が低いものになった。

ツァーリ・ボンバが爆発する前までは、アメリカが冷戦時代の軍拡競争をリードしていた。

全文は 広島・長崎の1500倍…ロシアが史上最大の核爆発の映像を公開

Original article in English: Russia released secret footage of history’s largest man-made explosion — a nuclear blast thousands of times stronger than Hiroshima via Business Insider

関連記事 New Video Shows Largest Hydrogen Bomb Ever Exploded via The New York Times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbC7BxXtOlo&feature=youtu.be
Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

New Video Shows Largest Hydrogen Bomb Ever Exploded via The New York Times

[…]

Last week, the Russian nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, released a 30-minute, formerly secret documentary video about the world’s largest hydrogen bomb detonation. The explosive force of the device — nicknamed Tsar Bomba, or the Tsar’s bomb, and set off on Oct. 30, 1961 — was 50 megatons, or the equivalent of 50 million tons of conventional explosive. That made it 3,333 times as destructive as the weapon used on Hiroshima, Japan, and also far more powerful than the 15 megaton weapon set off by the United States in 1954 in its largest hydrogen bomb blast.

From several angles and distances, the video shows the development of the weapon’s gargantuan mushroom cloud, hinting at the bomb’s churning power and apocalyptic force.

Over decades, the big challenge for the makers of the nation’s nuclear arsenal (as well as Russia’s) turned out to be devising not big hydrogen bombs but small ones, which were judged as more useful for targeted attacks. Miniaturization let hydrogen bombs be made small enough so that many warheads could fit atop a single missile (putting many cities simultaneously at risk) or that they could be sent into war aboard trucks, submarines and other non-aerial platforms.

[…]

Read more at New Video Shows Largest Hydrogen Bomb Ever Exploded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbC7BxXtOlo&feature=youtu.be
Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

A message from the most bombed nation on earth via Aljazeera

More than 900 nuclear tests were conducted on Shoshone territory in the US. Residents still live with the consequences.

by Ian Zabarte 29 Aug 2020

You never know what is killing you when it is done in secret.

I watched my uncle suffer from horrible cancer that ate away at his throat and my grandfather die of an auto-immune disease that is known to be caused by exposure to radiation. They say he had a heart attack, but when your skin falls off, that puts stress on your heart.

Many of my cousins have died. Last year, my cousin, who is about 50, had a defibrillator put in his chest. Now his daughter, who is a toddler, has heart problems as well. At around the same time, one of my cousins told me his mom has cancer. And then a week later, he found out he has it, too.

A few months ago, an elder here died from a rare form of brain cancer.

Every family is affected. We have seen mental and physical retardation, leukaemia, childhood leukaemia, all sorts of cancers.

[…]

In the treaty, the Shoshone continued to own the land but we agreed that in exchange for $5,000 a year for 20 years, paid in cattle and other goods, the US could establish military posts on the land, that US mail and telegraph companies could continue to operate telegraph and stage lines on it, that a railway could pass through it, that the US could mine for minerals on it.

But shortly before the end of World War II, we started to be overrun by the US military industrial complex, in ways we are only now beginning to understand.

Nuclear fallout

In 1951, in violation of the treaty, the US established the Nevada Proving Grounds (what would later become known as the Nevada Test Site and is now known as the Nevada National Security Site) on Shoshone territory and began testing nuclear weapons – without our consent or knowledge. We suspect that Nazi scientists brought to the US as part of Operation Paperclip – to help the US develop nuclear weapons – were involved.

On January 27, 1951, the first nuclear test took place on our land, when a one-kilotonne bomb was dropped from a plane flying over the site.

Over the next 40 years, it became the premier testing location for American nuclear weapons. Approximately 928 nuclear tests took place on the Shoshone territory – 100 in the atmosphere and more than 800 underground.

When the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945, 13 kilotonnes of nuclear fallout rained down on the Japanese city. According to a 2009 study in the Nevada Law Journal, between 1951 and 1992, the tests conducted on our land caused 620 kilotonnes of nuclear fallout.

I was born in 1964, a year after above-ground testing of nuclear weapons was banned. But the US continued to test weapons of mass destruction under our land almost every three weeks until 1992.

The downwinders

The fallout from these tests covered a wide area, but it was Native American communities living downwind from the site who were most exposed – because we consumed contaminated wildlife, drank contaminated milk, lived off contaminated land. For Native American adults, the risk of exposure has been shown to be 15 times greater than for other Americans, for young people that increases to 30 times and for babies in utero to two years of age it can be as much as 50 times greater.

When the fallout came down, it killed the delicate flora and fauna, creating these huge vulnerabilities across thousands of square miles of Shoshone territory. The pine trees we use for food and heating were exposed, the plants we use for food and medicine were exposed, the animals we use for food were exposed. We were exposed.

As a result, we have watched our people die. Some of the strongest defenders of our land, of our people, just gone.

But we have to protect our land and our people. Our identity is the land. Our identity is the pure pristine water coming out of the ground, flowing for millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years. We see that pure water as a medicine. People need that pure water to heal.

But what we find is that we have the US brokering for the nuclear industry, brokering for the mining industry, the destruction of our property for profit.

We cannot endure any further risk, whether from nuclear weapons testing or coal ash or oil tracking, any radiation source at all.

Hammers and nails

We are beginning to understand what has happened to us. For more than 50 years, we have been suffering from this silent killer and the US government’s culture of secrecy keeps it silent. But we need relief.

In every other part of the world where there have been nuclear catastrophes or nuclear testing – such as Kazakhstan, Japan, even Chernobyl – there are health registries to monitor those who have been exposed, even if the numbers are kept artificially low in some places. We do not have that here in the US. We do not have that for Native American downwinders. We need that kind of testing. We need health registries. We need monitoring. We cannot wait any longer for the health disparities we are experiencing to be identified.

We are having to fight the US to get it to understand our basic health needs.

Killing Shoshone people was never part of the treaty we signed. Our people would never have engaged in something that would result in our own destruction.

Our custom is sharing, but when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail, and that is what the US military has been doing, hammering the Shoshone with bombs.

Read more at A message from the most bombed nation on earth

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | 12 Comments

Up to 1,000 ‘downwinders’ likely got cancer from Trinity test, study says via Santa Fe New Mexican

By Scott Wyland swyland@sfnewmexican.comSep 1, 2020 Updated Sep 2, 2020

As many as 1,000 New Mexicans living in communities near the Trinity Site, where the first atomic bomb was detonated 75 years ago, might have developed cancer from the radioactive fallout, says a long-awaited National Cancer Institute report released Tuesday.

The institute’s findings were based on a six-year study that involved computer modeling, researching historical data and interviewing 210 elderly “downwinders” who lived close enough to the blast to suffer internal radiation exposure by ingesting contaminated milk and food.

The number of cancer victims could be considerably less than 1,000 but is unlikely to be more, the study says.

There’s also no clear evidence the radiation caused genetic abnormalities that could be passed by birth to subsequent generations, the study says.

The study was met with disappointment and criticism by some whose families lived in the area when the bomb was detonated in the desert of south-central New Mexico on the morning of July 16, 1945.

[…]

The study’s authors concede there’s much uncertainty in the report because so many years have passed since the test, elderly residents’ memories of their diet are not wholly reliable and there was no state registry that tracked New Mexico cancer cases until the late 1960s.

Researchers had to draw on the institute’s cancer database, launched in the mid-1970s, to estimate the state’s cancer caseload before the atomic test.

“Hence, it is not possible to know, with certainty, if cancer rates changed in New Mexico in the first decades after the test compared to before the test,” the study states.

The report comes after decades of criticism from downwinder advocates, who have accused the federal government of refusing to acknowledge affected residents to avoid liability.

These critics have fought to get downwinders — whose numbers are dwindling with the passage of time — and their families government relief through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The program covers only residents of Utah, Nevada and parts of Arizona who were harmed by above-ground nuclear testing during the Cold War — not Trinity Site downwinders.

One such critic is Tina Cordova, co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium. She disagreed with some of the study’s conclusions, such as fallout having no intergenerational effects and communities south and east of the blast, including Tularosa, Alamogordo and Carrizozo, not being part of the downwind epicenter.

Cordova said one school of science acknowledges radiation can affect DNA, and another resists the idea. The institute apparently falls in the latter category, she said.

“Exposure to radiation damages cells, all cells,” she said. “It concentrates in reproductive organs. Why would it not damage your DNA?”

Cordova argued it’s well documented the cloud of fallout dispersed in the atmosphere and winds blew it in different directions.

The fallout wasn’t limited to its main body drifting northeast, she said. Data from various monitoring stations would show the places where the fallout landed, but it has never been made public, she added.

Dr. John Boice, one of the study’s authors, said there’s no proof intergenerational effects from radiation exposure have ever occurred, even in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the atomic bombings.

The study concludes most cancer cases in New Mexico since 1945 are unrelated to Trinity fallout. And the lack of data makes it nearly impossible to peg any individual cancer to the blast, it says.

Among the “fraction” of cancer cases linked to radiation exposure, the most common was thyroid cancer, the study says. That’s because the thyroid gland is the primary organ that concentrates radioactive byproducts.

For this reason, contaminated fresh milk was of great interest because it leads to radioactive iodine concentrating in the thyroid, especially in children, due to their smaller glands, the study says.

Exposure was highest among whites and Hispanics because of where they lived, the study says. It was similar but sometimes lower for African Americans, and the lowest among Native Americans because most lived outside the main fallout area.

During a Tuesday teleconference, Joseph Shonka, who co-authored a 2010 study on the effects of nuclear testing, asked why the institute didn’t study vital statistics on people who died of cancer between 1939 and 1949 to see whether there was an upward trend.

“It’s not a morbidity study; it’s a cancer development study,” replied Steve Simon, an institute staff scientist and the study’s principal investigator.

One caller asked whether government data on the Trinity blast’s negative health impacts is still kept under wraps because of the Manhattan Project’s secrecy.

Simon said researchers found ample unclassified information and felt no need to dig into off-limits vaults.

Cordova said the study also failed to delve into whether increased radiation exposure led to more infant deaths, including a high rate in the summer of 1945. She questioned why the institute would do a study researchers say cannot draw definite conclusions and yet act as if it were conclusive. That could be misleading and damaging, she said.

“There will be people from our organization and from organizations across the country that are going to take a deep dive into this and that will have critiques of this study,” Cordova said.

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

What’s missing from American schools’ curricula? Nuclear weapons via Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

By Sara Z. Kutchesfahani

This week, students across the United States are heading back to school. While many high schools and universities are still deciding whether classes this semester will happen online, in-person, or in some hybrid combination, one thing is certain: Nuclear weapons are not a standard part of their class curricula.

A perpetual question of self-reflection in the nuclear professional community is why so few people are aware of the dangers associated with nuclear weapons, especially in the United States, a country that boasts 43 percent of the total global nuclear stockpile.

But the answer is fairly simple. Nuclear weapons issues are not a standard part of secondary school education, nor are they widely covered in undergraduate and graduate programs. A 2018 survey of 1,100 high school students in Washington State found that less than 1 percent even knew which countries possessed nuclear weapons. The finding was all the more startling because the students live in a nuclear-armed country themselves, and in an area with a nuclear legacy dating back to the Manhattan Project.

While the situation is not as bad at the university level, the number of undergraduate courses that cover nuclear weapons issues is still low. A 2019 study on undergraduate nonproliferation education found that, among 75 of the top-ranked public, private, and military institutions in the country, on average, each institution offered seven such courses over a two-year academic period, or less than two courses per semester. A good way to contextualize that is to compare it to course offerings on climate change—the other most pressing threat to humanity’s survival. The same study found that on that topic, the nation’s three leading public, private, and liberal arts institutions each offered between 19 and 30 courses during just a single academic year (2017–2018).

[…]

First, check out a new platform that offers a diverse volunteer network of professionals ready to speak with students and teachers about topics, lessons, classes, college, internships, and career advice on nuclear issues. The platform is called NRICHED, and its creators want to empower students with agency to tackle the world’s biggest problems through experiential learning. Beyond the network of professionals, the platform also offers engaging, memorable lesson plans to help enhance understanding of nuclear weapons issues.

Second, consider offering a nuclear security undergraduate class at your institution, and press administrators to recognize its importance. For those whose administrators are hesitant, the Stanton Foundation provides grant support for the development of new nuclear-related courses for undergraduates each academic year. (Full disclosure: I was the lucky recipient of such a grant, which allowed me to teach a course on nuclear security policy, the first of its kind to be offered at the undergraduate level, at the University of Maryland this past spring.)

Third, enlist the outstanding work of Girl Security, an organization that provides specialized programming for (female) high school students on national security subjects, including nuclear weapons. The Girl Security team helps empower young women with practical training through simulation exercises developed by women national security practitioners. Moreover, they provide girls with placement in a phased mentorship network, pairing them with women national security professionals who are one step ahead of them in their academic and professional advancement.

Posted in *English | Tagged , | 5 Comments

甲状腺摘出手術200人〜福島県の甲状腺検査 via Our Planet-TV

東京電力福島第1原発事故に伴う福島県民の健康調査について議論している「県民健康調査」検討委員会で31日、今年3月末までに、246人が甲状腺がんの疑いがあると診断され、200人が甲状腺の摘出手術を受けたと発表した。

資料 https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal/kenkocyosa-kentoiinkai-39.html

[…]

今年度の学校検診、高校では実施せず
新型コロナウイルスの影響を受け、今年3月から実施を見合わせていた学校での検査については、検査の実施内容を大幅に見直し。今年度415校で計画していた甲状腺検査をのうち、257校での検査を来年度以降に見送ることを提案。今年度、学校で検査する対象者は、約9万人から約2万人と4分の1以下に減ることとなった。

具体的には、今年3月に実施予定だった4巡目の検査(いわき市内の16校2000人が対象)は9月以降に予定通り実施するものの、今年4月以降にスタートする予定だった5巡目検査は大幅に変更。避難区域13市町村、桑折町、国見町、二本松市、本宮市、大玉村など135校15,200人と県立・国立・私立校17校のうち、今年度の検査を希望した7校2400人は予定通り実施する一方、福島市、白河市、天栄村、西郷村、泉崎村、郡山市、三春町の195校42,800人は来年度以降にずれ込む。また県立高校での検査は一切、実施しないこととなった。対象者は52校21,000人の検査にのぼる。

[…]

学校での検診状況調査へ
また検討委員会では、小中学校や高校などで一斉に行う検査について、具体的な調査に入ることも決めた。9月から11月にかけ、県職員が県内20校程度を訪問し、検査状況を視察するほかヒヤリング等を実施。小、中学校と高校で行われている学校検査に対する保護者らの認識を調査する。

学校で一斉に実施されている甲状腺検査をめぐっては、一部の専門家が任意性が確保されていないのではないかと批判。学校での検診をやめるよう主張してきた。今回の調査はそうした背景を受けたもの。検査の運用状況や、検査を受ける選択の自由が担保されているかなどについて聞き取る。

県の甲状腺検査が学校で行われる際には、主に授業時間に行われて、ほとんどの児童や生徒が参加していることから、一部の専門家からは検査を受けるかどうかを子どもが決められるよう、授業以外の時間に行うことを求める意見などが出されていました。

このほか検討委員会の星北斗座長は、学校関係者以外にも調査の幅を広げことを提案。了承された。次回の検討委までに聞き取りする保護者の規模や具体的な手法、実施時期を検討し、提案する予定だ。

全部と動画

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Science is objective—but are all scientists objective? via Nation of Change

By Karl Grossman August 25, 2020

There is science—and then there is scientific vested interests.

With a denier of science in The White House—whether it has to do with the climate crisis or Covid-19 and so on—there is a major push, including by Democratic officials, for making science the basis for governmental decision-making.

That’s completely understandable.

But what about the push by some scientists to politically further areas of science and technology which they favor? Science might be objective—but that doesn’t mean all scientists are.

Take Congressman Bill Foster. 

An atomic physicist from Illinois, for 23 years he worked at Fermilab in Illinois, established in the 1960s and run by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. With the AEC disbanded in the 1970s, it fell under the U.S. Department of Energy, which still runs it.

Foster, elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2012 on the Democratic line is—no surprise—a booster of atomic energy. “As a scientist, Bill Foster believes that nuclear power can be made safe, and has been made safe in the United States,” it is declared on his billfoster.com website. “Waste disposal remains a technically possible but politically unsolved problem.”

“What is missing in the nuclear debate,” it says, “is an accurate understanding of the costs of nuclear compared to other low-carbon sources, “In the short-term it appears that low natural gas prices from hydro-fracturing technology [fracking] may make the capital investment in new nuclear plants hard to justify—even at sites where the licensing and environmental permitting is already in place. In the longer term, we should press ahead with advanced technologies such as inherently safe High-Temperature Gas [atomic] Reactors with high Carnot efficiency and noncorrosive coolants, small modular reactor designs, inertial and magnetically confined fusion energy, and accelerator-driven Thorium cycle energy production.”

[…]

The claim that nuclear power is among “low-carbon sources” is also the current major nuclear industry PR claim. In fact, the “nuclear fuel cycle”—especially mining, milling, “enrichment” to produce nuclear plant fuel—is carbon-intensive. And nuclear plants themselves emit carbon—radioactive Carbon-14.

[…]

In his farewell address as president in 1961, Dwight Eisenhower warned of the rise of a “military-industrial complex” in the U.S. In fact, according to Douglas Brinkley, formerly director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans, the original draft of the speech warned not only of a “military-industrial complex” but of a “military-industrial-scientific complex.” Because of the “urging” of Eisenhower’s science advisor, James Killian, said Brinkley, the word “scientific” was eliminated. (Brinkley is now Katherine Tsanoff Brown Chair in Humanitiesand professor of history at Rice University.)

Remaining in Eisenhower’s address were other words on the issue. Eisenhower said, “in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposing danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”

[…]

One need not be a scientist at a federal facility involved in atomic science to develop an affinity for nuclear technology. Involvement in the U.S. nuclear Navy can also be a springboard. 

Take Congresswoman Elaine Luria. 

Her online biography notes “Rep. Luria was one of the first women in the Navy’s nuclear power program.” She “served two decades in the Navy, retiring at the rank of Commander. Rep. Luria served at sea on six ships as a nuclear-trained Surface Warfare Officer, deployed to the Middle East and Western Pacific.”

In the online biography, Luria, of Virginia, states: “As a nuclear engineer in the Navy, I saw firsthand that nuclear power, when deployed safely and responsibly, can play a key role in our future as a zero-carbon energy source. That is why I introduced the bipartisan Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, which will encourage innovation in the design and deployment of advanced nuclear reactor technologies.”

Her Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, introduced in 2019, declares its purpose is to “direct the Secretary of Energy to establish advanced nuclear goals, provide for a versatile, reactor-based fast neutron source, make available high-assay, low-enriched uranium for research, development, and demonstration of advanced nuclear reactor concepts, and for other purposes.”

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

How an Article about the H-Bomb Landed Scientific American in the Middle of the Red Scare via Portside

On April 1, 1950, the New York Times carried a sensational front-page headline, “U.S. Censors H-Bomb Data; 3,000 Magazine Copies Burnt.” The story’s lead sentence read: “Gerard Piel, editor of the Scientific American, attacked the censorship policies of the Atomic Energy Commission yesterday when he disclosed ….” The article went on to report that the government had destroyed every trace of the original text by physicist Hans Bethe, melting down the “objectionable linotype slugs” at the printing plant and then incinerating the “complete file of proofs” along with those 3,000 printed copies.

Piel, a scion of the family that brewed Piels Beer, was one of the first journalists to recognize the implications of nuclear research for weapon making, and he faced censorship, blacklisting and surveillance. Reporting for Life from 1943 to 1944, Piel was shown a telegram from the wartime Office of Censorship warning the magazine that certain topics, such as “atomic energy” and “uranium,” were now classified. “I took that telegram as a reading list,” Piel recalled. During an interview with Piel, Robert W. Wood of Johns Hopkins University fumed about a secret Manhattan Project that was placing heavy orders for his spectroscopic research equipment. The physicist, however, figured out the purpose of the classified endeavor. “They’re engaged in making the most frightful weapon,” Wood told Piel.

Realizing the “Age of the Atom” was dawning, Piel spoke with close colleagues at Life about a new publication with the editorial independence for an informed discussion about the uses of science. With Life buddy Dennis Flanagan and New York friend Donald H. Miller, Jr., Piel relaunched the moribund Scientific American in 1948 with a simple editorial approach. Leading scientists would explain developments in their fields to intelligent readers, and Scientific American’s editors would translate their convoluted texts into readable prose. This editorial formula captivated its educated audience, eventually attracting essays by more than 150 Nobel Prize winners, including Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and Francis Crick.

[…]

In 1950 Scientific American joined the nuclear debate with a four-part inquiry into the hydrogen bomb. In the first installment, scientist Louis Ridenour criticized the decision to build this destructive weapon and condemned the “bankruptcy of our secrecy policy” that stifled public debate. A month later, in the April 1950 issue, physicist Hans Bethe pleaded for finding ways to“save humanity from this ultimate disaster” by reconsidering the president’s decision to build the new super bomb. Because he had circulated his draft among colleagues, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) had seen the manuscript, and it telegrammed the magazine to bar publication of Bethe’s article, which had already gone through part of its press run. When Piel asked for specific objections, the AEC replied that any details could compromise national security. In a closed-door confrontation, the AEC finally agreed to permit publication with some “ritual deletions.”

[…]

Piel’s mind was still not at rest, though. His magazine was “a very fragile little institution,” with just over 100,000 circulation. “The Atomic Energy Commission or somebody in it at any time can leak this to the House Un-American Activities Committee or Joe McCarthy,” he thought, “and we’ll be cooked. So I called up the New York Times and said I have a story.”

The incident became what Piel called “a nationwide overnight sensation” that protected him from accusations of breaching national security. A Times editorial supported Scientific American, warning that “censors … run the risk of doing great harm.”

Piel’s stance won him public admiration and closer FBI surveillance. Agents reported that Piel and his first wife, then living in Greenwich Village, “were active in the ‘12th Street Neighbors for Peace,’ which was connected with the Stockholm Peace Petition,” an advocacy group for a nuclear weapons ban.

At the peak of the McCarthy-era’s witch hunt for Communists in May 1953, a Senate subcommittee summoned Scientific American managing editor Leon Svirsky. Although suspecting that Svirsky had been a member of a secret Communist cell at Time magazine, Piel provided skilled counsel that let him emerge from the Senate hearing unscathed.

While investigating alleged Communists inside the U.S. Army in July 1954, the Senate’s Internal Security Subcommittee subpoenaed Scientific American’s promotions director, Stephen M. Fischer, who had been press secretary for Henry Wallace’s 1948 Progressive presidential campaign. With the adept lawyer Piel provided, Fischer evaded prosecution by confessing his Communist Party membership while refusing to name names. But the most challenging security case was Piel’s own. When Piel was asked to become an adviser for a journal published by the U.S. Public Health Service, his acceptance required an FBI security check. The bureau determined, Piel said, “I was a subversive and disloyal to the United States.”

At an appeal to the Loyalty Board, the FBI reported that Scientific American had “derided” the evidence in the Rosenberg atomic espionage case, which, Piel said, “it certainly had.” Another demerit was his friendship with Harvard University astronomer Harlow Shapley, a contributor to the magazine and a peace activist who had dismissed Senator Joseph McCarthy’s accusations of his disloyalty as “untrue and vague.” Finally, the FBI report accused Piel of membership in the American Labor Party, a Progressive group allied with Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia of New York, to which Piel said, “I certainly was.” Even so, his name was cleared from the taint of disloyalty.

All this dissent established the magazine’s reputation for editorial independence, winning subscribers and advertisers. By deftly manipulating the historical forces at play—press freedom versus national security—Gerard Piel had made his publication an important forum for critical analysis of U.S. science policy during the coldest years of the cold war.

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | Comments Off on How an Article about the H-Bomb Landed Scientific American in the Middle of the Red Scare via Portside

核のごみ処分場が決まるの? 北海道寿都町応募検討 進展に道の同意必要=回答・山下智恵 via 毎日新聞

(略)

 記者 片岡春雄(かたおかはるお)町長が8月中旬、高レベル放射性廃棄物(ほうしゃせいはいきぶつ)最終処分場選定(せんてい)に向けた文献(ぶんけん)調査への応募を検討すると表明しました。

(略)

Q 選定はどうやって進むのかな。

 A 論文やデータを事前に調べる文献調査(約2年)▽ボーリングし地質を調査する概要(がいよう)調査(約4年)▽地下施設を作る詳細(しょうさい)調査(約14年)の3段階で決まります。

 Q 交付金が出るんだってね。

 A 見返りに国から文献調査で最大20億円、概要調査で最大70億円の交付金が出ます。

(略)

A 町内の賛否は分かれています。次の調査段階に進むには首長と知事の同意が必要ですが、鈴木直道(すずきなおみち)知事は反対の立場のため、文献調査に応募しても概要調査には進めません。

 Q それでも町長が応募したいのはなぜ?

 A 町の年間予算は約56億円。文献調査の交付金20億円でも魅力的(みりょくてき)です。根底には「原発があるのに最終処分場の議論をしないのはおかしい」との町長の政治信条もあります。応募の是非は別として処分や選定の方法などの議論は必要です。(北海道報道部)

全文は核のごみ処分場が決まるの? 北海道寿都町応募検討 進展に道の同意必要=回答・山下智恵

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , | Comments Off on 核のごみ処分場が決まるの? 北海道寿都町応募検討 進展に道の同意必要=回答・山下智恵 via 毎日新聞