Page:The Minority of One 1961-10.pdf/11

In addition to genetic damage, people are being damaged in other ways. The principal one is cancer. Perhaps as many as a million will be caused to die of cancer as a result of damage done by radioactive fallout. Cancer culprits consist of cesium-137, iodine-131, carbon-14, and the familiar strontium-90. It is probable that about 10% of all cases of cancer are caused by background radiation (natural radiation and cosmic rays). The fallout in 1959 was 5% of the background radiation and it continues to increase (peak fallout not expected until 1962-1965). Strontium-90 continues to fall to the earth getting into food, especially milk and then it is built into the bones of humans. Every human has strontium-90 in his body today —before 1945 nobody had it. Strontium-90 irradiates the bone marrow and bone tissue in such a way as to cause leukemia and bone cancer. Todine-131 irradiates the thyroid, and causes cancer of the thyroid. Cesium-137 and carbon-14 irradiate all of the tissues in the body and cause all kinds of cancer. Dr. Pauling estimates, on the basis of quantitative information from the incidence of leukemia in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors and from other medical research, that the bomb tests carried out thus far will cause 160.000 people now living to die of leukemia and bone cancer, and about a million altogether to die of cancer of all kinds. Generally speaking all geneticists have reached the conclusion that high-energy radiation causes mutations in human beings such as to lead to the birth of defective children. Careful studies by Drs. Steward and Hewitt in England strongly support the estimates about damage due to fallout radioactivity that are given above. When and if the worry about fallout by bomb tests ends, we will have to tackle the problem of “fallout” from nuclear waste presently being mishandled by the AEC and private enterprise. The shoddy record of private enterprise and the Atomic Energy Commission in this field calls for a special federal agency cooperating with state and local health departments. And with the growing number of nuclear powers, the problem also calls for an international agency. Many bold and factual articles have been written by competent people in the less widely read periodicals. The reason for the lack of bold factual material in the major news media on most vital subjects was ably described by William O. Douglas, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: “We have... suffered a decline in ethics. Government has become a stepping stone to individual advancement in the business or industry that its particular agency regulates . . . The vast decay that has permeated our system extends to those who exploit our communication media. The standard of public interest seems to be more and more the wish or caprice of the sponsor who is nervous lest his products become associated with controversial subjects. So a great leveling influence reduced the communications media to mediocrity.<r3>”

WHY DO SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ON THE DANGERS?

There is a lack of data on long-term effects. Dr. Charles L. Dunham, of the AEC Division of Biology and Medicine, has estimated that it would take 1-15 years to learn by experience what precise effects strontium-90 has on dogs, therefore on humans. Others stress that overestimating the fallout danger is bad for science and inhibits research. Still others stress that underestimating the fallout danger may wreak irreparable havoc on the human race. The stand taken in regard to the “threshold problem” (point below or above which radiation doses are harmful) sees the geneticists and present government policy diametrically opposed. As stated before, geneticists agree that there is almost certainly no threshold so far as genetic damage is concerned. The same assumption by many experts has been made for bone cancer and leukemia — there is no “safe dosage.” Government policy (e.g. in the main, the military mind) o ftimes minimizes dangers of fallout (Armed Forces Special Weapons, by Dr. Frank Shelton) to little or nothing by stating that explosions totaling 30,000 megatons would be required to bring the average amount of strontium-90 in human bones up to the “danger point.” This “danger point” would be 5 to 10 points below that necessary to produce a barely “detectable increase” in the rate of bone cancer or leukemia.

The AEC and people like Dr. Frank H. Shelton often make statements regarding fallout such as “negligible,” “average,” and “barely detectable.” These words are very interesting — making fallout a statistical problem rather than a personal human problem. Comparisons are often made between risks from fallout and risks of driving a car or smoking cigarettes, or from natural background radiation. Comparing the risk of fallout to that of smoking cigarettes is misleading; people have a choice in regard to cigarettes. While the author lived in the South Pacific during the years of 1953-1955, the people in that area did not have a choice in the matter of bomb tests. As I recall they were not consulted. The word “average” is very deceiving — ignoring variation within average (e.g. worldwide fallout distribution patterns). Fallout is unevenly distributed on the earth. It is reputed to be highest in the world in the United States.

The AEC and the Pentagon justify continuing of tests with certain harm to some people in order to avoid the possibility of a greater catastrophe resulting from an attack by the Soviets. There is talk of “clean bombs” and “neutron bombs” — all “necessary” to fill “the gap.” In each case most of the talk is designed to lend false urgency to the need for continuing tests. An uninformed or misinformed populace can be told or conditioned to believe anything.

The first man who wanted to leave the cave was perhaps considered subversive by his fellow cavemen. Today we are grateful to this man who dared to be creative in thought and action. Curiously enough however, today the man who protests upon being forced back into the cave (bomb “shelter”) is considered subversive. Man’s history seems to have evolved in a circle. I shudder to think of just where mankind would be now if it were not for those all too precious few who dare to live and think creatively. I can see very little creativity about man-made caves...

The Collegian’s Minority*

In Defense of R.O.T.C.

By Grayfred B. Gray

While we dissent from virtually every statement made in the article presented here, we publish it to encourage polemic. We hope that some of the student readers' responses to Mr. Gray's article will express our own reasons for disagreeing with it. - Ed.

An article entitled “Militarism: University Style” appeared in the June 1961 TMO. The writer, Roger Schneier, tried to establish that the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) is harmful to society”. I shall not make a positive case for ROTC, but Schneier’s criticisms should be answered.

Schneier suggests that an individual who studies military strategy as part of a college course cannot “be expected to work for or even believe in peace and intellectual integrity”. Aside from the obvious fact that the study of one subject can hardly close the mind of an intelligent person to other ideas, we might note that throughout history there have been men who studied the ways of war and still ardently sought for the paths of peace. Are we to believe that George Washington and Robert E. Lee were not peace-loving men of intellectual integrity? The writer implies that the ROTC student is subject to “stringent controls”. This s contrary to fact. Discipline in ROTC is notoriously lax. The assertion that participation in ROTC inhibits the free thought of intelligent individuals is without foundation. It is unfortunate that Schneier finds marching young men a “frightening sight”, but it proves nothing. The fact that in a military organization there is a system of rank, even among cadets, is reasonable in view of its purpose. Group and personal pride are important in a military unit as in any society. To ridicule a cadet of proud bearing for being “like Hitler” and for tin soldierism is both poor humor and pointless as evidence of the harmful character of the ROTC. Since ROTC students are civilians, there is no standing regulation which forbids them to petition. Clearly, however, what one does outside an organization may well have a bearing on his relation to that organization. The fact that Schneier could get no signatures on his petitions, even when people assured him that they agreed with him, is indicative more of the failure of ROTC to draw the best men than of its success in instilling fear. A man of conviction would sign the petition he agreed with despite the price. It is absurd to assert that the reason for refusal to sign is simple fear. Schneier says, “America has never been more ready for militarism.” However true this may be his statements do not support the contention. It is not true that the “average American lives in mortal terror of the ‘communist menace’ ”, and the proof of this lies in the fantastic efforts being made by organizations such as the John Birch Society to awaken the American people. To describe today as “peace time” as Schneier does is to ignore the direction of our national energies. We do not refer to these times as the cold war because we think it is peace. Schneier suggests an inappropriate analogy between ROTC, narcotics, and the Communist Party. The analogy breaks down because the essential point in evaluating the three is not the voluntary character of participation as Schneier suggests. The ROTC is not considered a menace because its purpose is to train men to defend our rights. The Communist Party is considered a menace because it opposes the exercise of many of our traditionally conceived rights. Terror terms and ridicule have too long been the tools of criticism. Impressionistic criticism, such as Schneier’s, is impressive to the enquiring mind only when it is supported by reason and fact. In a time of crisis the need is for rational and factual criticism.

Mr. Gray has recently graduated from Washington & Lee University in Lexington, Va.

• This feature is reserved for contributions by students. Each contributor is awarded a complimentary subscription to TMO for himself or for the person or library of his choice.