¶ … Nuclear Weapons Issue:
Comparing Two Articles
Nuclear Weapons are not to be trifled with. These monsters can, in fact, annihilate the Earth in minutes. Though many applaud the progress of technology in achieving such powerful weapons, most people lobby against nuclear weapon use, which can be detrimental on land, vegetation, animal life, sea life, water life, and, of course, humanity at large. From previous examinations, it is necessary to note that nuclear weapons have harmed those that were nowhere near where they were detonated, thus proving the incredible extent of damage that they can provoke. This paper will analyze two articles, both of which deal with this issue and will examine the purpose, content and goals of each author.
First Article - Content
In the first article, the author describes nuclear weapons testing in the United States. He states by stating the as the 1970's cane to an end, American that had become more and more educated started reevaluating nuclear policies, especially in the light of the Three Mile Island meltdown that had occurred, and which would soon result in a wide movement against nuclear weapons. Millson (2010) then describes the sicknesses that Americans had suffered as a result of the radiation, and the numerous trips to court in order to receive compensation for these harms. Millson (2010) also describes the arduous process through which these plaintiff had to go. He states,
"the process to receive compensation was difficult, and the plaintiffs had to produce evidence that their illnesses were caused by radiation. This was difficult to do because evidence was rare; and much of the evidence available favored nuclear testing. Reports from the AEC showed that testing was not harmful, the press covered the testing positively, and scientists were...
NATO did a study on effects of radiation on humans and concluded that I-131 had a small effect on the thyroid, and that radiation is not likely a cause of leukemia." (Millson, 2010)
Despite this long, arduous, and often fruitless process, many persisted and eventually received compensation; however, these numbers are quite low. Despite the fact that, as a result of these complaints, Congress started regarding it as truly a concern, it did nothing to remedy the situation.
Finally, after two decades, Congress created the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which, according to Millson (2010) gave money to the following groups if evidence of radiation exposure was produced:
1. uranium miners,
2. employees who were related to the test site, and
3. "downwinders," or people who lived in the "downwind" direction of the test side.
However, according to Millson (2010), "downwind" compensation was low due to the fact that these individuals could not prove that they had been exposed, and the radiation that they had suffered could not be linked to cancer.
Second Article - Content
In the second article, the story is much more personal, though just as sad. Here, Williams (2004) tells of the "one-breasted" women, or victims of breast cancer. She offers a more personal story of how breast cancer has impacted her family on the women's side, and states that the "fatty diets," becoming pregnant after 30, and many of the other supposed causes of cancer did not apply to her family, who had a good diet, did not drink, smoke, and finished having babies by the age of 30. However, she does note that her family had been living in Utah, and this, she calls "the greatest hazard of all."
Williams (2004) states that her…
