The Cold War’s Toxic Legacy: Costly, Dangerous Cleanups at Atomic Bomb Production Sites
05 March 2018
Popular
Recovery Act-funded work at the Hanford Site. U.S. Department of Energy
By William J. Kinsella
Seventy-five years ago, in March 1943, a mysterious construction project began at a remote location in eastern Washington state. Over the next two years some 50,000 workers built an industrial site occupying half the area of Rhode Island, costing more than $230 million—equivalent to $3.1 billion today. Few of those workers, and virtually no one in the surrounding community, knew the facility's purpose.
<p>
The site was called Hanford, named for a small town whose residents were displaced to make way for the project. Its mission became clear at the end of World War II. Hanford had produced plutonium for the first
<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear">nuclear</a> test in the New Mexico desert in July 1945, and for the bomb that incinerated Nagasaki on Aug. 9.
</p><p>
<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vldkGEEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" target="_blank">As a researcher</a> in environmental and energy communication, I've studied the <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739119044/Nuclear-Legacies-Communication-Controversy-and-the-U.S.-Nuclear-Weapons-Complex" target="_blank">legacies of nuclear weapons production</a>. From 2000 to 2005, I served with a <a href="http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/hab" target="_blank">citizen advisory board</a> that provides input to state and federal officials on a massive environmental cleanup program at Hanford, now one of the most contaminated sites in the world.
</p><p>
As U.S. leaders
<a href="https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.PDF" target="_blank">consider producing new nuclear weapons</a>, I believe they should study lessons from Hanford carefully. Hanford provides one of the more dramatic examples of problems that unfolded—and persist today—at nuclear sites where production and secrecy took priority over safety and environmental protection.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg1MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NTUzMjA2Mn0.zrKS5ffRTtCygZO_eYrI3o2oE1XrEUhmmBqs2Y7wQEM/img.jpg?width=980" id="c9e50" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d96432088dc0f00092c81d72db6f767d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/ProjectsFacilities#HM" target="_blank">www.hanford.gov</a></small>
</p><p>
<strong>A Nationwide Nuclear Network</strong>
</p><p>
Hanford was one of three large facilities anchoring the
<a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/history" target="_blank">Manhattan Project</a> – the crash program to build an atomic bomb. It was part of a larger complex linking facilities across the nation. A plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, enriched uranium and operated a prototype nuclear reactor. Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico assembled a cadre of world-class scientists to design and build the weapons, using materials produced at the other sites. Smaller facilities across the nation made other contributions.
</p><p>
As World War II phased into the Cold War and the U.S.-Soviet arms race escalated, new sites were added in Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Colorado and elsewhere. Secrecy masked much of the work at these sites until well into the 1980s, with serious consequences for public health, worker safety and the environment. Nuclear and chemical wastes caused severe contamination at Hanford and the other sites, and dealing with them has proved to be difficult and costly.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg2OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNTM4NjA0OX0.GZ1jGqkAYnrBrWcpQnyUpR2o4LHznEoy1DIT74I9YTc/img.jpg?width=980" id="433e8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4c3a669d0c5378d06971e2856ba619c5" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Major sites in the Cold War nuclear weapons production complex</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."> USDOD</small>
</p><p>
<strong>Contamination at Hanford</strong>
</p><p>
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, the U.S. had mass-produced some 70,000
<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear-war">nuclear bombs</a> and warheads. <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html" target="_blank">Hanford made most of the plutonium used in those weapons</a>. Workers irradiated uranium fuel in reactors, and then dissolved it in acid to extract the plutonium produced. This method, called reprocessing, generated 56 million gallons of liquid wastes laced with radioactive and chemical poisons.
</p><p>
Hanford's nine reactors were
<a href="http://www.toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Radioactive+Contamination+of+the+Columbia+River" target="_blank">located along the Columbia River</a> to provide a source of cooling water, and discharged radiation into the river throughout their lifetimes.
</p><p>
Fuel was sometimes reprocessed before its most highly radioactive isotopes had time to decay. Managers knowingly released toxic gases into the air, contaminating farmlands and grazing areas downwind. Some releases supported an
<a href="https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199602/backpage.cfm" target="_blank">effort to monitor Soviet nuclear progress</a>. By tracking intentional emissions from Hanford, scientists learned better how to spot Soviet nuclear tests.
</p><p>
Liquid wastes from reprocessing were stored in
<a href="https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Nuclear-waste/Hanford-cleanup/Tank-waste-management/Tank-monitoring-closure" target="_blank">underground tanks</a> designed to last 25 years, assuming that a permanent disposal solution would be developed later. The U.S. Department of Energy, which now operates the weapons complex and its cleanup program, is still working on that solution.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg4NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDUwODA2M30.28wTmEVe0qWKIOw6EyPNaPyZjw6uYwSUac4KnaONKCc/img.jpg?width=980" id="1d837" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="00f4ec77ca860b4413e58bc2f2e0a723" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Workers prepare to remove the core from a waste tank at Hanford in 2010.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."> Hanford Site</small>
</p><p>
Meanwhile, at least a million gallons of tank wastes have
<a href="http://hanfordlearning.org/hanford-101/cleanup/tri-party-agreement/department-of-energy/" target="_blank">leaked into the ground</a>. This material, and the prospect of more to follow, threatens the Columbia River, a backbone of the Pacific Northwest's economy and ecology. <a href="https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/clock-ticks-as-nuclear-waste-storage-tanks-leak-at-hanford/" target="_blank">Some groundwater is already contaminated</a>. Estimates of when that plume will reach the river are uncertain.<br>
</p><p>
Radioactive trash still litters parts of Hanford. Irradiated bodies of laboratory animals were
<a href="https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Workers-uncover-carcasses-of-Hanford-test-animals-1225341.php" target="_blank">buried there</a>. The site houses radioactive debris ranging from medical wastes to <a href="http://www.oregon.gov/energy/facilities-safety/safety/Pages/Naval-Nuclear-Transport.aspx" target="_blank">propulsion reactors from decommissioned submarines</a> and <a href="http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/pdf.cfm?accession=E0025397" target="_blank">parts of the reactor</a> that melted down at Three Mile Island. Some nuclear decision makers have called Hanford a "national sacrifice zone."
</p><p>
<strong>A Struggle for Accountability</strong>
</p><p>
In the mid-1980s, local residents grew suspicious about an apparent excess of illnesses and deaths in their community. Initially, strict secrecy—reinforced by the region's economic dependence on the Hanford site—made it hard for concerned citizens to get information.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg5MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MzEyMzcyMn0.zKJ-CKGOCT9LqpwEb_VXXUrM360-o9OSXGDhTeKRmkk/img.jpg?width=980" id="2c53b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="21ab629baad3728e9fb14ff4b532dba3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Cold War-era billboard at Hanford reinforcing strict secrecy rules</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">USDOE</small>
</p><p>
Once the curtain of secrecy was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430120052284" target="_blank">partially lifted</a> under pressure from area residents and journalists, public outrage prompted <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/hanford/background.pdf" target="_blank">two major health effects studies</a> that engendered fierce controversy. By the close of the decade, more than 3,500 "downwinders" had filed lawsuits related to illnesses they attributed to Hanford. A judge finally <a href="http://www.tricityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article57866938.html" target="_blank">dismissed the case</a> in 2016 after limited compensation to a handful of plaintiffs, leaving a bitter legacy of legal disputes and personal anguish.</p><p>Cleanup operations at Hanford began in 1989, but have been hamstrung by
<a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/will-hanford-ever-be-cleaned-up/" target="_blank">daunting technical challenges and management errors</a>. The <a href="http://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/2016_LCR_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf" target="_blank">current estimate</a> assumes work will continue through 2060 and cost more than $100 billion, beyond the approximately $50 billion already spent.</p><p>
A key challenge is building a facility to extract the most toxic materials from the tank wastes and enclose them in glass logs to be sent elsewhere for permanent burial.
<a href="http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article159590304.html" target="_blank">Projected costs</a> have ballooned to more than $17 billion, and the estimated completion date is now 2036. And with the proposed <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/341369-trump-triggers-fight-over-yucca-waste-site" target="_blank">Yucca Mountain</a> nuclear waste repository in Nevada mired in controversy, there is still no final resting place for these materials, which will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
</p><p>
Cleanup has progressed in other areas. The reactors have been shut down and enclosed in
<a href="https://energy.gov/em/articles/hanford-workers-enter-reactor-prepare-cocooning" target="_blank">concrete and steel "cocoons"</a> until their radioactivity decays further. Hanford's "<a href="http://b-reactor.org/" target="_blank">B Reactor</a>," the world's first large-scale nuclear reactor, is now part of the <a href="https://energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-management/history/manhattan-project/manhattan-project-0" target="_blank">Manhattan Project National Historic Park</a>.
</p><p>
Buffer lands around the outer parts of the site, presumably clean enough for the purpose, have been converted to
<a href="https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Hanford_Reach/maps.html" target="_blank">wildlife refuge areas</a>. And in 2015, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Observatory (LIGO), with a station located at Hanford, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happens-when-ligo-texts-you-to-say-its-detected-one-of-einsteins-predicted-gravitational-waves-53259" target="_blank">detected the first gravitational waves</a> predicted by Albert Einstein. LIGO scientists chose Hanford for its remote location and minimal interference from human activity.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="350cd7e117c8e9768f7a976320558cac"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8rlVHEY7BF0?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
</p><p>
<strong>Lessons to Remember</strong>
</p><p>
The Department of Energy now considers
<a href="https://energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites" target="_blank">many of its former nuclear weapons production sites</a> to be fully cleaned up. Some remaining sites are involved in maintaining the current nuclear arsenal and could play roles producing new weapons. Others, like Hanford, are "legacy" sites where cleanup is the sole mission.
</p><p>
There is more oversight of the nuclear weapons complex today, but serious concerns remain. Notably, inspectors have found problems at
<a href="http://www.lanl.gov/" target="_blank">Los Alamos National Laboratory</a> dating back to 2011 related to handling of <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-watchdog-identifies-new-workplace-safety-problems-at-los-alamos-lab" target="_blank">beryllium</a>, a toxic material that can cause <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer">cancer</a> and lung disease.
</p><p>
These issues at Hanford and other nuclear sites are reminders that nuclear weapons production is a risky process—and that in Washington state and elsewhere, legacies of the Cold War are still very much with us.
</p><p>
<em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-cold-wars-toxic-legacy-costly-dangerous-cleanups-at-atomic-bomb-production-sites-90378" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90378/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Uranium Mining's Toxic Legacy: Why the U.S. Risks Repeating Mistakes
22 February 2018
Health + Wellness
Radiation area from Horseshoe Mesa uranium mine tailings at Grand Canyon's South Rim. Al_HikesAZ / Flickr
By Stephanie Malin
Uranium—the raw material for nuclear power and nuclear weapons—is having a moment in the spotlight.
Companies such as Energy Fuels, Inc. have played well-publicized roles in lobbying the Trump administration to reduce federal protection for public lands with uranium deposits. The Defense Department's Nuclear Posture Review calls for new weapons production to expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which could spur new domestic uranium mining. And the Interior Department is advocating more domestic uranium production, along with other materials identified as "critical minerals."
<p>
What would expanded uranium mining in the U.S. mean at the local level? I have studied the legacies of past uranium mining and milling in Western states for over a decade. My <a href="https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/the-price-of-nuclear-power/9780813569789" target="_blank">book</a> examines dilemmas faced by uranium communities caught between harmful legacies of previous mining booms and the potential promise of new economic development.
</p><p>
These people and places are invisible to most Americans, but they helped make the U.S. an economic and military superpower. In my view, we owe it to them to learn from past mistakes and make more informed and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sustainability">sustainable</a> decisions about possibly renewing uranium production than our nation made in the past.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzMyMTU2NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTIyNjAyNn0.vyD6UyRATnB8lrHDuJTlFF3IRJgASojzGXegw0TokR4/img.jpg?width=980" id="7511e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4e4117c87a260dd1ed0c8a4df557225f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">National Energy Education Development Project, CC BY-ND</small>
</p><p>
<strong>Mining Regulations Have Failed to Protect Public Health<br>
</strong>
</p><p>
Today most of the uranium that powers U.S. nuclear reactors is imported. But many communities still suffer impacts of <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/10/473547227/for-the-navajo-nation-uranium-minings-deadly-legacy-lingers" target="_blank">uranium mining</a> and milling that occurred for decades to fuel the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race. These include <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01408" target="_blank">environmental contamination</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1963288/" target="_blank">toxic spills</a>, abandoned mines, under-addressed <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222290/" target="_blank">cancer and disease clusters</a> and <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08941920903005795" target="_blank">illnesses</a> that citizens link to uranium exposure despite federal denials.
</p><p>
As World War II phased into the Cold War, U.S. officials rapidly increased uranium production from the 1940s to the 1960s. Regulations were minimal to nonexistent and largely unenforced, even though the <a href="https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/achre/final/chap12_2.html" target="_blank">U.S. Public Health Service</a> knew that exposure to uranium had caused potentially fatal health effects in <a href="https://upcolorado.com/utah-state-university-press/item/2171-uranium-frenzy" target="_blank">Europe</a>, and was monitoring uranium miners and millers for health problems.
</p><p>
Today the industry is subject to regulations that address worker health and safety, environmental protection, treatment of contaminated sites and other <a href="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.92.9.1410" target="_blank">considerations</a>. But these regulations <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/13266/chapter/10#225" target="_blank">lack uniformity</a>, and enforcement responsibilities are spread across multiple agencies.
</p><p>
This creates significant regulatory gaps, which are worsened by a federalist approach to regulation. In the 1970s the newly created Nuclear Regulatory Commission initiated an <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/state-tribal/agreement-states.html" target="_blank">Agreement States</a> program, under which states take over regulating many aspects of uranium and nuclear production and waste storage. To qualify, state programs <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/state-tribal/agreement-states/wyoming-faq.html" target="_blank">must be</a> "adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's regulatory program."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzMyMTU2OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNDAzNjAxMX0.ypZFyckVYBX-yB-03J8Xxg8kg1fEd2heRvC2SW2-Wc4/img.jpg?width=980" id="06d2b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="62f353036c046e14892cd57d5df463a3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">The Orphan uranium mine on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon operated from 1956-1969 and is now a radioactive waste site. </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Alan Levine, CC BY</small>
</p><p>
Today <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/doc-collections/maps/agreement-states.png" target="_blank">37 states</a> have joined this program and two more are applying. Many Agreement States struggle to enforce regulations because of <a href="https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/the-price-of-nuclear-power/9780813569789" target="_blank">underfunded budgets, lack of staff and anti-regulatory cultures</a>. These problems can lead to piecemeal enforcement and reliance on corporate self-regulation.
</p><p>
For example, budget cuts in Colorado have forced the state to <a href="https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/the-price-of-nuclear-power/9780813569789" target="_blank">rely frequently on energy companies</a> to monitor their own compliance with regulations. In Utah, the <a href="http://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-pollution-a-uranium-mill-in-utah-threatens-to-repeat-a-history-of-pollution" target="_blank">White Mesa Mill</a>—our nation's only currently operating uranium mill—has a record of persistent problems related to permitting, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/water">water</a> contamination and environmental health, as well as tribal sacred lands and artifacts.
</p><p>
<strong>Neglected Nuclear Legacies</strong>
</p><p>
Uranium still affects the <a href="http://www.hcn.org/articles/pollution-a-26-000-ton-pile-of-radioactive-waste-lies-under-the-waters-and-silt-of-lake-powell" target="_blank">environment</a> and human health in the West, but its impacts remain woefully under-addressed. Some of the poorest, most isolated and ethnically marginalized communities in the nation are bearing the brunt of these legacies.
</p><p>
There are approximately <a href="https://www.abqjournal.com/1129580/researchers-to-measure-mixed-metals-mining-contamination-on-native-americans.html" target="_blank">4,000 abandoned uranium mines</a> in Western states. At least 500 are located on land controlled by the <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/10/473547227/for-the-navajo-nation-uranium-minings-deadly-legacy-lingers" target="_blank">Navajo Nation</a>. Diné (Navajo) people have <a href="http://www.sric.org/" target="_blank">suffered some of the worst</a> consequences of U.S. uranium production, including cancer clusters and water contamination.
</p><p>
<a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b01408" target="_blank">A 2015 study</a> found that about 85 percent of Diné homes are still contaminated with uranium, and that tribe members living near uranium mines have more uranium in their bones than 95 percent of the U.S. population. Unsurprisingly, President Donald Trump's decision to reduce the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bears-ears">Bears Ears National Monument</a> has reinvigorated discussion over <a href="http://www.hcn.org/articles/tribal-affairs-trumps-message-for-tribes-let-them-eat-yellowcake" target="_blank">ongoing impacts of uranium contamination</a> across tribal and public land.
</p><p>
Despite legislation such as the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca" target="_blank">Radiation Exposure Compensation Act</a> of 1990, people who lived near uranium production or contamination sites often became forgotten casualties of the Cold War. For instance, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903005795" target="_blank">Monticello, Utah</a>, hosted a federally owned uranium mill from 1942 to 1960. Portions of the town were even <a href="https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0800679" target="_blank">built from tailings</a> left over from uranium milling, which we now know were radioactive. This created two <a href="https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0800867" target="_blank">Superfund sites</a> that were not fully remediated until the late 1990s.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="74a9d13fe06fe3c6421d37448b36756b"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AbhTcQGx17I?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
</p><p>
Monticello residents have dealt with <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/MonticelloMillTailings/MonticelloMillTailingsPHAFinalBlue02262014_508.pdf" target="_blank">cancer clusters, increased rates of birth defects and other health abnormalities</a> for decades. Although the community has sought federal recognition and compensation since 1993, its requests have been <a href="https://aeon.co/ideas/rural-communities-can-t-afford-the-cost-of-nuclear-power" target="_blank">largely ignored</a>.<br>
</p><p>
Today tensions over water access and its use for uranium mining are creating conflict between regional tribes and corporate water users around the <a href="https://www.indianz.com/News/2017/12/13/havasupai-tribe-sees-mixed-victory-in-li.asp" target="_blank">North Rim of the Grand Canyon</a>. Native residents, such as the Havasupai, have had to defend their <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/17/grand-canyon-uranium-mining-havasupai-tribe-water-source" target="_blank">water rights</a> and fear losing access to this vital resource.
</p><p>
<strong>Uranium Production Is a Boom-and-Bust Industry</strong>
</p><p>
Like any economic activity <a href="http://www.hcn.org/articles/boom-bust" target="_blank">based on commodities</a>, uranium production is volatile and unstable. The industry has a <a href="http://www.nasdaq.com/article/uranium-boom-uranium-bust-cm258599" target="_blank">history of boom-bust cycles</a>. Communities that depend on it can be whipsawed by rapid growth followed by destabilizing population losses.
</p><p>
The <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/governing-uranium-united-states" target="_blank">first U.S. uranium boom</a> occurred during the early Cold War and ended in the 1960s due to oversupply, triggering a bust. A second boom began later in the decade when the federal government authorized private commercial investment in nuclear power. But the <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html" target="_blank">Three Mile Island</a> (1979) and <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx" target="_blank">Chernobyl</a> (1985) disasters ended this second boom.
</p><p>
Uranium prices soared once again from 2007 to 2010. But the 2011 tsunami and meltdown at Japan's <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx" target="_blank">Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant</a> sent prices plummeting once again as nations looked for alternatives to nuclear power.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzMyMTU5Ni9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNDY4MDY5N30.RVETLoZ16XudnAEZ3nVzK3KWK_Fz8gUEXd9n4b-2DTs/img.png?width=980" id="f3c80" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7e4f817e1e2eebd72682d8df3fd3993a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">U.S. uranium production, 1949-2011</small>
</p><p>
Companies like Energy Fuels maintain—especially in <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/13/the-uranium-widows" target="_blank">public meetings with uranium communities</a>—that new production will lead to <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/auk.2014.36.issue-2/auk-2014-0205/auk-2014-0205.pdf" target="_blank">sustained economic growth</a>. This message is powerful stuff. It boosts support, sometimes in the very communities that have suffered most from past practices.
</p><p>
But I have interviewed Westerners who worry that as production methods become more technologically advanced and mechanized, energy companies may increasingly rely on bringing in out-of-town workers with technical and engineering degrees rather than hiring locals—as has happened in the <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/01/25/automation-guarantees-a-bleak-outlook-for-trumps-promises-to-coal-miners/" target="_blank">coal industry</a>. And the core tensions of boom-bust economic volatility and instability persist.
</p><p>
Uranium production advocates contend that new <a href="http://www.telluridenews.com/the_watch/news/article_a2195dcf-fe4f-5039-bc80-cd52b67ebbf8.html" target="_blank">"environmentally friendly" mills</a> and <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/governing-uranium-united-states" target="_blank">current federal regulations</a> will adequately protect public health and the environment. Yet they offer little evidence to counter White Mesa Mill's poor record.
</p><p>
In my view, there is little evidence that new uranium production would be more reliably regulated or economically stable today than in the past. Instead, I expect that the industry will continue to privatize profits as the public absorbs and subsidizes its risks.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="2cbea" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="738HZ51576662584"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="941066507366359041" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Grand Canyon Uranium Mining Ban Upheld by Appeals Court https://t.co/xGAISxeWIG @greenpeaceusa @foe_us @EnvAm</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/941066507366359041">1513202714.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
<em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://theconversation.com/before-the-us-approves-new-uranium-mining-consider-its-toxic-legacy-91204" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em><br>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91204/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p><em><br></em>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" data-width="710" data-height="959" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" data-width="800" data-height="800" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" data-width="600" data-height="600" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
- Full Spectrum CBD Oil: What To Know - EcoWatch ›
- Charlotte's Web: A Review of the Certified B Corp CBD Brand ›
- Best CBD Waters: Plus All You Need to Know - EcoWatch ›
- The Best Water Soluble CBD Available Online - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD for Sleep (Lab-Tested, Person-Tested Oils) - EcoWatch ›
- CBD Oil for Dogs: 7 Benefits & Treatment Guide - EcoWatch ›
- NuLeaf Naturals CBD Review | Are They Worth The Cost? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Capsules & Pills - Buyer's Guide (Update for 2021) - EcoWatch ›
- Because Price Matters: Most Affordable CBD Oils of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- Strongest CBD Oils to Buy in 2021? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oils For Pain: Top 3 Brands of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Vape Pen: Top Brands of 2020 - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
There Are Better Things in France for Trump to Emulate Than a Military Parade
22 February 2018
Popular
President Trump and French President Macron review troops during the Bastille Day parade last July.
By Elliott Negin
President Trump was so impressed by the military parade he saw in Paris on Bastille Day last July that he ordered the Pentagon to plan a bigger one for Washington, DC.
<p style="">"It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen," Trump <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-marching-orders-to-the-pentagon-plan-a-grand-military-parade/2018/02/06/9e19ca88-0b55-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.4f10986ac488" target="_blank">told reporters</a> when he met with French President Emmanuel Macron in New York in September for the opening of the UN General Assembly. "It was two hours on the button, and it was military might, and I think a tremendous thing for France and for the spirit of France. We're going to have to try to top it."</p><p style="">Of course Trump wants to top it. All things Trump are always "huge," from his inauguration day crowd to his nuclear button to his tax cut. But if the president really wants to outdo France, below are some tremendous French things that the United States would do well to emulate.</p><p style=""><strong>The French Are Safer</strong></p><p>After the mass shooting last week at a Florida high school, Trump <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/963878055969198080?lang=en" target="_blank">tweeted</a> his "prayers and condolences" to the victims' families. His initial comments also focused on mental health, not guns, despite the fact that early last year he <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221" target="_blank">signed</a> a bill revoking an Obama-era rule that made it harder for mentally ill people to buy firearms.</p><p>The French, by contrast, do a lot more than offer empty platitudes: They have stringent gun laws. French citizens who want to <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france" target="_blank">buy a gun</a> have to apply for a hunting or sporting license, which requires a psychological evaluation and, if acquired, must be renewed every five years. Gun sales, meanwhile, are tightly regulated and require official background checks.</p><p style="">Stricter controls definitely make a difference: France has significantly fewer guns in civilian hands and fewer gun-related deaths per capita than the United States.</p><p style="">In 2013, for example, there were an estimated <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-france-shooting-guns-idUSBRE82M14620120323" target="_blank">10 million guns</a>, both legal and illegal, in France, which at the time had a population of 66 million. That year, <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france" target="_blank">1,750 people</a> were killed by firearms, amounting to 2.65 deaths per 100,000 people.</p><p style="">By contrast, the United States, with a population of 316.2 million in 2013, had an estimated <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/?utm_term=.6f553442dee9" target="_blank">357 million guns</a> in circulation—more than one gun per person. That year, there were <a href="https://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe" target="_blank">33,636 U.S. gun deaths</a>, or 10.64 deaths per 100,000—four times the rate in France.</p><p style=""><strong>They're Healthier, Too</strong></p><p style="">White House doctor Ronny Jackson <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/if-trump-is-as-healthy-as-his-doctor-says-hes-beating-long-odds/2018/01/18/9ded80a0-fc63-11e7-8f66-2df0b94bb98a_story.html?utm_term=.19a30c488347" target="_blank">assured</a> Americans in January that President Trump is in "excellent health." Given the results of Trump's physical exam, that's debatable, but the health of the U.S. health care system is not. It's in bad shape, especially when compared with France's.</p><p style="">France's public-private hybrid health care system is consistently rated among the best in the world. Last year, for example, France placed 18th in the health category in the Legatum Institute's annual <a href="http://www.prosperity.com/" target="_blank">Prosperity Index</a>, which ranks 149 countries on health outcomes, economic performance, education quality and six other categories. The United States health care system, meanwhile, came in 30th.</p><p style="">Like every other industrialized nation besides the United States, France has universal health coverage. All French citizens are covered by the government's <em>Assurance Maladie</em>, and most also have private insurance through their job or the private market. The government sets prices for appointments and procedures and reimburses them at 70 percent. It's similar to Medicare and Medicaid, but because the system covers the entire population, the French government has more leverage to keep prices low.</p><p style="">The United States spends <a href="https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends" target="_blank">more than twice</a> per capita on health care than France, but French babies have a better chance of staying alive and living longer than American newborns. France's infant mortality rate, according to 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) data, is <a href="http://apps.who.int/gho/data/?theme=country&vid=8800" target="_blank">3.2 deaths</a> per 1,000 live births. At <a href="http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.country.country-USA" target="_blank">5.7 deaths</a> per 1,000 live births, U.S. infant mortality is higher than in any comparable industrialized democracy. And at the end of life, France boasted a combined male and female life expectancy of 82.4 years, putting it in 9th place in a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#cite_note-10" target="_blank">2015 WHO survey</a>. The United States, by contrast, ranked 31st, with a combined life expectancy of 79.3 years.</p><p style=""><strong>They Eat Better</strong></p><p>France's <a href="https://www.thelocal.fr/20161025/tipping-the-scales-one-in-two-french-adults-are-overweight" target="_blank">obesity rate</a> is 15.3 percent, slightly better than the 15.9 percent for the entire European Union. By contrast, nearly 38 percent of American adults are <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm" target="_blank">obese</a>, including President Trump, who apparently <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/311637-how-tall-is-donald-trump-drivers-license-raises-questions" target="_blank">fudged his height</a> to avoid being classified that way.</p><p style="">French and U.S. stats on food and farming tell a similar disparate story. In 2017, France ranked No. 1 for the second year in a row in the <a href="http://foodsustainability.eiu.com/1512-2/" target="_blank">Food Sustainability Index</a>, which grades 34 countries worldwide in three categories: food loss and waste, nutrition policies and sustainable agriculture. It bested every other country in reducing food waste and came in fourth in nutrition on the strength of its programs that promote healthy diets. In the sustainable agriculture category, it placed third, largely due to a national <a href="http://institut.inra.fr/en/content/view/full/214289" target="_blank">agro-ecology program</a> that, among other things, is encouraging farmers to cut their pesticide use in half by 2025 and <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/karen-perry-stillerman/crop-rotation-generates-profits-without-pollution-or-what-agribusiness-doesnt-want-you-to-know?_ga=2.158448122.1753707037.1518580705-803850457.1367700932" target="_blank">rotate their crops</a> to increase soil fertility.</p><p style="">The United States, conversely, <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-the-us-food-system-ranks-poorly-in-the-2017-food_us_5a302767e4b0b73dde46a7cc" target="_blank">ranked 21st overall</a>, mainly because of policies that cultivate bad eating habits and destructive industrial farming practices. The fact that Americans consume high levels of meat, saturated fat and sugar placed the United States 24th in the nutrition category. Only Australians <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/where-do-people-eat-the-most-meat-2015-9" target="_blank">eat more meat</a> than Americans, but not by much, and U.S. sugar consumption is the highest among all of countries in the study. The result? More than 40 percent of American children are overweight, the most in any of the countries surveyed.</p><p style="">At 31st out of 34, the U.S. ranking for sustainable agriculture is even more worrisome. Only India, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates ranked lower. The low U.S. score is attributable to a number of factors, including <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/industrial-agriculture/cafos-uncovered.html#.Woizk4JG3GY" target="_blank">livestock production</a>, which strains water resources and emits <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/29/methane-emissions-cattle-11-percent-higher-than-estimated" target="_blank">methane</a>, and the fact that a tiny fraction of agricultural land is devoted to organic farming while nearly a quarter is used for biofuel production and animal feed.</p><p style=""><strong>They Make Education More Affordable</strong></p><p>France starts children off with free, universal preschool at <em>écoles maternelles</em>. With 100 percent preschool enrollment for 3- to 5-year-olds, the country ranked <a href="https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF3_2_Enrolment_childcare_preschool.pdf" target="_blank">first among developed countries</a> in 2014, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international association.</p><p>The United States, where some states offer preschool programs from age 4 but most offer nothing at all, ranked 36th out of the 40 nations OECD surveyed. In 2015, only about a third of American 3-year-olds and 60 percent of 4-year-olds were <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cfa.asp" target="_blank">enrolled</a> in preschool programs, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.</p><p style="">Most schools of higher education in France, meanwhile, are state-subsidized, which keeps <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/advice/cost-studying-university-france" target="_blank">tuition</a> relatively low, even by European standards.</p><p style="">In 2007, the average public university in France charged $234 per year (189 euros) for a bachelor's degree, $321 for a master's degree, $487 for a doctorate and $757 for an engineering degree. The average bachelor's degree takes three to four years, so students spend $702 to $936 for their entire undergraduate education. There are pricier options, but compared to the cost of higher education in the United States, they are still a bargain.</p><p style="">The United States is home to the most prestigious colleges and universities in the world, but they are also among the most expensive. The average cost of <a href="https://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064" target="_blank">tuition and fees</a> for the 2017–2018 school year was $34,740 at private colleges, $9,970 for state residents at public colleges and $25,620 for out-of-state residents attending public universities, according to the College Board.</p><p style="">The high cost of a college diploma saddles American grads with debt that can dog them for much of their adult life. Currently there are more than <a href="https://www.makelemonade.co/top-reads/refinancing-student-loans-5-things" target="_blank">44 million borrowers</a> with more than $1.4 trillion in student loan debt, which after home mortgages is the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2017/02/21/student-loan-debt-statistics-2017/#6f5b3f865dab" target="_blank">highest consumer debt category</a> in the United States. For the class of 2016, the average student loan debt was $37,172.</p><p style=""><strong>They Treat Workers Better</strong></p><p style="">The national minimum wage in France is <a href="https://wageindicator.org/main/salary/minimum-wage/france" target="_blank">9.88 euros an hour</a>, the equivalent of $12.25 an hour in the United States. The U.S. national minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, although some states and municipalities now require as much as $15.</p><p style="">The official work week in France is 35 hours, so a French employee making minimum wage would gross the equivalent of $22,297 a year and <a href="https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-503-0054?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1" target="_blank">is entitled to</a> health care coverage, a minimum of five weeks paid vacation and 11 national holidays, as many as 90 days paid time off, and a maximum of three years of medical leave pay, which is covered by the state social security system. Maternity leave, which is at least six weeks before childbirth and 10 weeks afterward, is paid.</p><p style="">Most minimum wage employees in the United States working 40 hours a week gross $15,080 a year. Employers with more than 50 employees are <a href="https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/bid/289948/does-my-employer-have-to-provide-health-insurance" target="_blank">required</a> to offer health care benefits or pay a penalty, and most provide only two weeks paid vacation along with 10 federal holidays. Employers with 50 or more employees also are required to grant up to 12 weeks of <em>unpaid</em> maternity (or adoption) leave or family sick leave.</p><p style="">At the other end of the pay scale, U.S. CEOs make <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/424159/pay-gap-between-ceos-and-average-workers-in-world-by-country/" target="_blank">considerably more</a> than their counterparts in other industrialized countries when compared to what average workers earn. In 2014, the ratio between CEO and average worker pay in the United States was 354 to 1, meaning that for every dollar an employee got paid, the head of the company made $354, far outpacing the 148 to 1 ratio in Switzerland, the country with the second highest pay gap. In France, the ratio was 104 to 1.</p><p style=""><strong>They're Downplaying the Role of Nuclear Weapons</strong></p><p>France, which has always maintained a much smaller nuclear force than the United States, currently <a href="http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/france/nuclear/" target="_blank">has</a> a total of 300 warheads deployed on submarines and bombers. In the 1990s, it eliminated its land-based missiles and signed and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).</p><p style="">The United States, conversely, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1264213?needAccess=true" target="_blank">has</a> some 1,590 deployed strategic nuclear warheads on submarines, bombers and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), as well as 2,390 redeployable warheads currently stored in a "hedge" stockpile, some 500 smaller deployed and stockpiled tactical (battlefield) warheads, and an estimated 2,300 retired warheads slated for dismantlement. The United States signed the CTBT the same time France did, but 22 years later, the U.S. Senate has still not ratified it.</p><p style="">ICBMs pose a big problem. The United States keeps them on <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/lets-take-us-nukes-off-ha_b_7174346.html" target="_blank">hair-trigger alert</a>, which dramatically increases the chance of an accidental, erroneous or unauthorized launch in response to a false alarm, a much more likely scenario than an actual attack. A number of retired <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/opinion/how-to-avert-a-nuclear-war.html" target="_blank">generals</a> and former high-level <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116787515251566636" target="_blank">government officials</a> have called for taking ICBMs off high-alert status, while others have called for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/opinion/why-its-safe-to-scrap-americas-icbms.html" target="_blank">scrapping</a> them altogether. Under the Trump administration, taking ICBMs off hair-trigger alert or retiring them are highly unlikely possibilities, and the Pentagon's recently released <a href="https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgronlund/trumps-npr-top-take-aways" target="_blank">Nuclear Posture Review</a> <em>lowers</em> the threshold for nuclear use.</p><p style=""><strong>They Do a Better Job Protecting the Environment</strong></p><p style="">Two recent studies ranked France way ahead of the United States when it comes to environmental protection. In the aforementioned Legatum <a href="http://www.prosperity.com/rankings" target="_blank">Prosperity Index</a>, France placed 4th out of the 149 nations surveyed. The United States was 34th. The second <a href="http://www.sgi-network.org/2017/" target="_blank">study</a>, published annually by the Bertelsmann Foundation's Sustainable Governance Indicators program, rated U.S. environmental policies 39th out of 41 countries, mainly because of the U.S. government's inability to seriously address <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">climate change</a>. France, on the other hand, ranked 12th, largely because of its leadership in international climate diplomacy.</p><p style="">France's climate leadership is evidenced by its binding <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/PublishedDocuments/European%20Union%20First/LV-03-06-EU%20INDC.pdf" target="_blank">commitment</a> as a signatory to the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement">Paris climate agreement</a> to reduce its domestic emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. By contrast, the Trump administration announced it was pulling out of the accord (which it cannot officially do until November 5, 2020—the day after the next presidential election) and made it clear it has no intention of honoring the U.S. national pledge.</p><p style="">As part of its plan to meet its Paris accord targets, the French government <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-cars-2040-emmanuel-macron-volvo" target="_blank">announced</a> last July that it will ban the sale of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles by 2040, and French automakers are already doing their part. Peugeot, Citroën and Renault ranked first, second and fourth on a <a href="https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/environment/2017/03/07/peugeot-leads-in-average-co2-emissions-league-table-as-european-total-fell-in-2016" target="_blank">2017 list</a> of large car manufacturers with the lowest carbon emissions, and Renault started selling battery-powered cars in 2011.</p><p style="">The Trump administration, conversely, wants to <em>weaken</em> fuel economy standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Commission is now considering permitting an average fleetwide standard of 36.7 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2026, considerably less than the 46.6 mpg requirement imposed by the Obama administration with the auto industry's consent. According to an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency <a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100Q3DO.pdf" target="_blank">analysis</a>, such a rollback would mean cars and light trucks would emit at least a half a billion more tons of carbon pollution and consume an extra 50 billion gallons of fuel over their lifetimes.</p><p style=""><strong>They Hold Cleaner Elections</strong></p><p style="">Unlike the U.S. system of legalized bribery, <a href="https://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php" target="_blank">French campaign finance laws</a> keep special interest money out of politics. French citizens can contribute as much as $5,750 (4,600 euros) to one or more candidates for a specific election, but corporations, unions and advocacy groups are not allowed to donate to political campaigns or parties. In addition, the government has placed limits on campaign expenditures pegged to the office level. Electoral campaigns are relatively brief, and national television and radio stations air political ads free of charge for all candidates during the three months preceding an election. All paid political ads during that time are prohibited. Citizens are automatically registered to vote when they reach the age of 18, and elections are held on a Sunday to make it easier for people to vote.</p><p style="">Restraining corporate influence in elections is one of the key reasons France outpaces the United States in many of the categories cited above. While special interests—from the gun lobby to industrial polluters to Wall Street—keep U.S. politicians on a tight leash, French elected officials are freer to represent the interests of their constituents, not the narrow interests of deep-pocketed campaign contributors and unregulated super PACs.</p><p style="">So, Mr. President, instead of spending as much as <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/02/15/585924807/trumps-military-parade-could-cost-as-much-as-50-million" target="_blank">$50 million</a> on parade displaying overpriced military hardware, how about trying to top some of these much more significant French accomplishments? America has proven time and time again that it can outperform the rest of the world, but history has also shown that it takes leadership to do it.</p><p style=""><em>Dave Cooke, Marcia DeLonge, Joshua Goldman, Chanelle Kacy-Dunlap, Rachel Licker and David Wright provided research assistance for this essay.</em></p><p style=""><em>Elliott Negin is a senior writer in the Communications Department at the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Scientists announce the new Doomsday Clock setting at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Scott Stapf / Twitter
The symbolic Doomsday Clock is ever closer to midnight, or the end of the world, scientists announced Thursday at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
The clock is now two minutes to midnight based on the predictions of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a non-profit organization that informs the public about threats to its survival due to nuclear threats, emerging technologies and climate change.
<p>
"This is the closest the Clock has ever been to Doomsday, and as close as it was in 1953, at the height of the Cold War," the group said.
</p><p>
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/doomsday-clock-trump-2216983060.html">Last year</a>, the Clock ticked forward an ominous two and a half minutes to midnight mostly thanks to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">President Donald Trump</a>. The nuclear danger of a Trump presidency, combined with his and his administration's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">climate denialism</a>, heighten the risk of a global catastrophe, the group warned then.
</p><p>
As for this year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explained that the clock moved forward another 30 seconds because "in 2017, world leaders failed to respond effectively to the looming threats of nuclear war and climate change, making the world security situation more dangerous than it was a year ago—and as dangerous as it has been since World War II."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="08df1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="II58851576683858"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="956560390002913281" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">See the 2018 Doomsday Clock Statement: https://t.co/ST3D8oi2L3 https://t.co/Ofucv3DFqD</div> — Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (@Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)<a href="https://twitter.com/BulletinAtomic/statuses/956560390002913281">1516896743.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
"The greatest risks last year arose in the nuclear realm. North Korea's nuclear weapons program appeared to make remarkable progress in 2017, increasing risks for itself, other countries in the region, and the United States," the group continued. "Hyperbolic rhetoric and provocative actions on both sides have increased the possibility of nuclear war by accident or miscalculation."
</p><p>
"On the climate change front, the danger may seem less immediate, but avoiding <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/extreme-weather">catastrophic temperature increases</a> in the long run require urgent attention now. The nations of the world will have to significantly decrease their <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/greenhouse-gases">greenhouse gas emissions</a> to keep climate risks manageable, and so far, the global response has fallen far short of meeting this challenge," the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists said.
</p><p>
Rachel Bronson, president of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, called on immediate global action to rewind the clock.
</p><p>
"It is urgent that, collectively, we put in the work necessary to produce a 2019 Clock statement that rewinds the Doomsday Clock," Bronson said. "Get engaged, get involved, and help create that future. The time is now."
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Should the President Have Sole Authority to Launch a Nuclear Attack? In the Age of Trump, Experts Offer an Alternate Plan
25 January 2018
Popular
Pierre J. / Flickr / Creative Commons
By Elliott Negin
More than a million people in Hawaii thought it was time to say their final alohas. A state cellphone alert announced that nuclear missiles were heading their way. "Ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii," the Jan. 6 text read. "Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill."
<p style="">Fortunately, it was a false alarm. It turned out that a Hawaii Emergency Management Agency employee had pushed the wrong button during an early morning shift-change safety drill. At a press conference later that day, Hawaii Gov. David Ige <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/is-this-the-end-of-my-life-false-alert-of-missile-attack-sends-hawaii-scrambling/2018/01/13/78c86054-f8a0-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?utm_term=.414e3ae1f3f0" target="_blank">promised</a> that no single person would be able to send such a warning again. The next day, the agency <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-trump-promises-involvement-after-hawaii-alert/2018/01/14/d3aebcae-f993-11e7-9b5d-bbf0da31214d_story.html?utm_term=.de0e40651dc5" target="_blank">announced</a> it now would require that two people issue an alert.</p><p style="">Good idea. But an even better idea would be to take the same approach to the U.S. nuclear button, the one that <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">President Trump</a> insists is bigger than North Korea's.</p><p style="">In a <a href="https://thebulletin.org/how-limit-presidential-authority-order-use-nuclear-weapons11454" target="_blank">paper</a> published Wednesday in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, two experts from the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a> (UCS) and a University of Maryland national security specialist recommend that U.S. policy require at least two other officials sign off on such a critical decision.</p><p style="">"There's no reason to maintain our current, unnecessarily dangerous policy," said paper co-author Lisbeth Gronlund, co-director of the UCS Global Security Program. "There are viable alternatives that would allow other officials to take part in any decision to use nuclear weapons, whether it's first use or a response to a nuclear attack."</p><p style=""><strong>Not Even a 'Stable Genius' is Reassuring Enough</strong></p><p style="">Putting aside the fact that the nuclear button is actually a briefcase that for some reason is called a football, the U.S. president has the sole authority to order the launch of a nuclear weapon, for any reason and at any time. That's terrifying, regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office. No one person, not even our current, self-described "stable genius," should have the license to start a <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear-war">nuclear war</a>. As former Defense Sec. William Perry <a href="https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-lieu-senator-markey-introduce-restricting-first-use-0" target="_blank">has said</a>, "Certainly a decision that momentous for all of civilization should have the kind of checks and balances on executive powers called for by our Constitution."</p><p style="">President Trump's ignorance about nuclear weapons and his chest-thumping threats to incinerate North Korea have prompted some members of Congress to take action. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) introduced a <a href="https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-lieu-senator-markey-introduce-restricting-first-use-0" target="_blank">bill</a> last January that would prohibit the president from ordering a first nuclear use without Congress declaring war, and last fall the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senators-deadlock-in-debate-over-whether-to-restrain-trumps-nuclear-launch-authority/2017/11/14/491a994a-c95b-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.390ba3ae8027" target="_blank">hearing</a> on the sole authority question for the first time in four decades.</p><p style="">But don't bet on Congress to pass legislation on the matter any time soon. The Markey-Lieu bill does not have the requisite bipartisan support, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who had previously <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/politics/corker-world-war-iii-donald-trump-white-house/index.html" target="_blank">warned</a> that Trump's bellicose rhetoric could put the country "on the path to World War III," <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senators-deadlock-in-debate-over-whether-to-restrain-trumps-nuclear-launch-authority/2017/11/14/491a994a-c95b-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.390ba3ae8027" target="_blank">told</a> reporters after the Nov. 14 hearing that he did "not see a legislative solution today." Something could happen "over the course of the next several months," he added, "but I don't see it today."</p><p style=""><strong>Who'll Be the Next in Line?</strong></p><p style="">A few days after Corker's hearing, Columbia University professors Richard K. Betts and Matthew Waxman published a <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/safeguarding-nuclear-launch-procedures-proposal" target="_blank">proposal</a> to constrain the president's sole authority. They suggest a protocol requiring the secretary of defense and the attorney general to certify the validity and legality of a presidential first-use order. The certification requirement would not apply if the United States were attacked, however, because Betts and Waxman presume it would delay a response.</p><p style="">Gronlund and her co-authors, UCS Global Security Program Co-Director David Wright and University of Maryland School of Public Policy Prof. Steve Fetter, agree that at least two other officials should be involved, but recommend the vice president and the speaker of the House of Representatives, the next two officials in the presidential chain of succession.</p><p style="">Tapping officials from the presidential succession list has three main advantages, Gronlund et al. explain. First, they have political legitimacy. Both are already designated by law to become commander-in-chief and assume authority to order a nuclear attack. Second, they would provide democratic input. Both were elected, and one—the speaker—can act on behalf of Congress. Finally, unlike the defense secretary or the attorney general, they are both independent. The president cannot fire either of them for refusing to follow an order.</p><p style="">Given that the Federal Emergency Management Agency continually tracks the location of the top officials in the line of presidential succession, Gronlund et al. point out, it would be relatively easy to include the vice president and House speaker in the decision-making process and make it possible for them to sign off on a first use order and a retaliatory nuclear launch.</p><p style="">"If the U.S. government is confident that the current system would allow a quick and smooth transfer of launch authority if the commander-in-chief were killed or incapacitated," they write, "it should also be confident that this system would allow a small number of additional officials to affirm a launch decision by the president."</p><p style=""><strong>End Hair-Trigger and Declare No First Use</strong></p><p style="">Gronlund and her co-authors recommend two other changes in U.S. nuclear policy that they say would make the world safer. First, they call on the U.S. to take its land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) off high alert and eliminate the option of launching them in response to an attack warning.</p><p style="">The policy of keeping U.S. land-based missiles on a hair trigger dates to the Cold War era, when both U.S. and Soviet military strategists feared a surprise first-strike nuclear attack on cities and industrial sites as well as on their land-based nuclear missiles and bombers. To ensure that they maintained the capability of responding, both countries kept their land-based nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert so they could be launched within minutes to avoid being destroyed on the ground.</p><p style="">Today, even if all U.S. ICBMs were destroyed in their silos, most U.S. nuclear weapons are deployed on submarines, which are virtually undetectable. They are designed to be able to survive a first strike and launch a retaliatory attack.</p><p style="">It is now much more likely that the U.S. would launch a retaliatory nuclear strike in response to an erroneous or misinterpreted nuclear-attack warning than an actual incident, the chance of which is extremely remote. Indeed, the possibility of an accidental nuclear launch is frighteningly real. A number of <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/hair-trigger-alert/close-calls#.WmecQOdOmCp" target="_blank">technical glitches and human errors</a> in both Russia and the U.S. over the past few decades have nearly triggered one.</p><p style="">Finally, Gronlund et al. urge the U.S. to embrace a no-first-use policy. The sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons, they write, should be "to deter and, if necessary, respond to the use of nuclear weapons against the United States or its allies."</p><p style="">A <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/pentagon-nuclear-review-cyberattack-trump.html" target="_blank">leaked draft</a> of the soon-to-be released Nuclear Posture Review, however, indicates that the administration plans to permit the use of nuclear weapons under a wider range of circumstances, including "non-nuclear strategic attacks," which presumably would include cyberattacks. To push back on this ill-advised idea, Gronlund and her co-authors urge Congress to pass the aforementioned Markey-Lieu bill requiring Congress to declare war and authorize the use of nuclear weapons as well as a <a href="https://adamsmith.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/smith-introduces-bill-establishing-no-first-use-policy-for-nuclear" target="_blank">bill</a> introduced by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) last November that simply states: "It is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first."</p><p style=""><em><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/author/elliott-negin#.WmIWGZM-ccg" target="_blank">Elliott Negin</a> is a senior writer in the Communications Department at the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</em></p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By John Buell
Last winter when President-elect Trump tweeted: "United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes," the tweet was portrayed as shockingly new and threatening. As president, Trump continues his inflammatory rhetoric. Nonetheless, his nuclear posture is closer to his predecessors than is commonly recognized. It has long been U.S. policy and practice to seek and rely on nuclear superiority. The U.S. led every step in the arms race. That arms race remains the greatest immediate threat to the survival of human civilization and other living beings. That threat has persisted under every president from Truman to Trump.
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed" style="">
</p><div id="b8a25" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="MXLKDE1576663566"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="811977223326625792" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes</div> — Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump)<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/statuses/811977223326625792">1482425430.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p style=""><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/chomsky-trump-doomsday-clock-2342419463.html">Noam Chomsky</a> reminds us: </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Khrushchev proposed sharp mutual reductions in offensive weapons. The incoming Kennedy administration considered the offer and rejected it, instead turning to rapid military expansion, even though it was already far in the lead. The late Kenneth Waltz, supported by other strategic analysts with close connections to U.S. intelligence, wrote then that the Kennedy administration 'undertook the largest strategic and conventional peacetime military build-up the world has yet seen ... even as Khrushchev was trying at once to carry through a major reduction in the conventional forces and to follow a strategy of minimum deterrence, and we did so even though the balance of strategic weapons greatly favored the United States.'"</p><p style="">More recently, anti-missile systems have been portrayed as defensive weapons, but this too is deceptive. No nuclear expert seriously thinks that these could withstand a full-scale nuclear exchange. Their deployment might at least plausibly repel the survivors of a first strike against a small-scale nuclear opponent, such as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/north-korea-radiation-leak-2504456693.html">North Korea</a> or Iran.</p><p style="">The irrationality with which Trump is properly charged is also part of the core nuclear doctrine. He is a perfect manifestation of what nuclear strategists have in mind. Chomsky cites a crucial Strategic Air Command study:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"That Stratcom study was concerned with 'the role of nuclear weapons in the post-cold war era.' A central conclusion: that the U.S. must maintain the right to launch a first strike, even against non-nuclear states. Furthermore, nuclear weapons must always be at the ready because they 'cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict.' They were, that is, constantly being used, just as you're using a gun if you aim but don't fire one while robbing a store (a point that Daniel Ellsberg has repeatedly stressed). Stratcom went on to advise that 'planners should not be too rational about determining … what the opponent values the most.' Everything should simply be targeted. '[It] hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed … That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national persona we project.' It is "beneficial [for our strategic posture] if some elements may appear to be potentially 'out of control,'" thus posing a constant threat of nuclear attack—a severe violation of the UN charter, if anyone cares."</p><p style="">Nor is such talk merely theoretical speculation. Not only did the Kennedy Administration pour fuel on the fire of the arms race, it practiced nuclear brinksmanship <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/chomsky-goodman-climate-change-2426716028.html">of the most dangerous sort</a>. Here is Chomsky again:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"As the crisis peaked in late October, Kennedy received a secret letter from Khrushchev offering to end it by simultaneous public withdrawal of Russian missiles from Cuba and U.S. Jupiter missiles from Turkey. The latter were obsolete missiles, already ordered withdrawn by the Kennedy administration because they were being replaced by far more lethal Polaris submarines to be stationed in the Mediterranean. Kennedy's subjective estimate at that moment was that if he refused the Soviet premier's offer, there was a 33 to 50 percent probability of nuclear war … Kennedy nonetheless refused Khrushchev's proposal for public withdrawal of the missiles from Cuba and Turkey; only the withdrawal from Cuba could be public, so as to protect the U.S. right to place missiles on Russia's borders or anywhere else it chose.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">It is hard to think of a more horrendous decision in history—and for this, he is still highly praised for his cool courage and statesmanship." (Popular culture has this story right. The movie Jackie suggests JFK will be remembered for ending a crisis he created.)</p><p style="">In this context we need to question <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-silence-corporate-media-2485281861.html">corporate media</a>'s frequent reference to modernizing nuclear weapons, the presumed sensible alternative to Trump's bellicosity. Weapons modernization is a euphemism that hides the real agenda, to render such weapons usable in "regional" wars. U.S. strategic rhetoric has always turned on the notion that nuclear superiority deters and that the U.S. must therefore never take the nuclear option—even first strike—off the table. That doctrine is dangerous at its core. How does the U.S. convince an opponent that it is always willing to use nuclear weapons? Eventually only by use of those weapons. (It would also be hard to convince residents of the Marshall Islands that after Japan we have never used such weapons.) </p><p style=""><strong>Apocalypse by Accident?</strong></p><p style="">Ironically, President Trump's frequent nuclear blustering serves to hide one aspect of the nuclear risk. Focus on his instability and possible impetuous resort to the nuclear trigger may distract from equally significant dangers. Any discussion to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/us-nuclear-weapons-test-2398101399.html">threat posed by nuclear weapons</a> should include recounting and further explanation of the multiple accidents with nuclear weaponry as well as the environmental dangers their manufacture and storage pose. In a review of Eric Schlosser's book on nuclear weapons, Jenny Turner said "the effort to control nuclear weapons—to ensure that one doesn't go off 'by accident' is undermined, over and over again, by demands from the military for bombs they can trust to explode." </p><p style="">There is a long catalogue of near disastrous accidents with nuclear weapons. Details of an infamous 1961 incident involving the accidental drop of an H-Bomb over Greensboro, NC are especially chilling, especially given President Trump's decision similarly to arm B-52s today. These details also suggest we should place little reliance on the willingness of top level generals to restrain the president. Here is a summary from the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961:" target="_blank">Guardian</a>: </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Further detail on what happened to the Mark 39 bomb when it fell over Goldsboro is given in a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/799648-brodie-goldsboro.html#document/p2/a122687" target="_blank">newly declassified document</a> written in 1987 reviewing the U.S. nuclear weapon safety programme. It records that as the B-52 broke up, the pin to arm the bomb that was normally manually operated was yanked out as it fell, thus arming it.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">All the various stages of the bomb's fall—the operation of the arming system, deployment of the parachute, timer operation, activation of its batteries, and delivery of the signal that would actually fire the bomb at impact—'all followed as a natural consequence of the bomb falling free.' Only the lack of engagement of the final ready-safe switch 'prevented nuclear detonation of this bomb.'"</p><p style="">Despite such expert awareness of the extremely tentative safeguards that stood between America and unthinkable disaster, successive U.S. administrations kept up the line in public that the country's nuclear arsenal was free from any risk of accidental detonation. This incident, just like the Cuban Missile crisis soon to follow, was just one more case where political and military leaders put the preservation of state power ahead of genuine public safety.</p><p style="">Because they are so dangerous, access to them must be limited, and thus independent investigators cannot accumulate information that could inform a critical assessment of their domestic risks. Secondly, preservation of nuclear secrecy is presented as one aspect of U.S. nuclear superiority. Finally, because they are one of the central pillars in our collective identity as a power second to none, criticism of these weapons is often written off as enemy-inspired and thus illegitimate. Add to this the economic boost nuclear arms provide to key military contractors and one has the makings of an almost invulnerable political machine. As Turner put it, "<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/nuclear-weapons" target="_blank">Nuclear weapons</a> are not like Wikipedia, on which anybody can spot a mistake and write in."</p><p style="">About the best argument I can think of for the safety of nuclear weaponry is that none has been accidentally detonated so far. From Schlosser's description, this technological success is in large measure fortuitous. I will state it as a law—complex systems are prone to unpredictable malfunctions. And as with many features of industrial life, there is more glory and economic reward in building the technologies than in maintaining them. Furthermore, in the grand scheme of human civilization, not to say of the planet, 72 years is but a trifle.</p><p style="">Donald Trump's climate agenda is extraordinarily dangerous, but his posture on nuclear weapons is not as far out of the accepted strategic doctrines as his critics charge. Policy in both domains constitutes an imminent threat to the future of human civilization. Climate denialism has its parallel in those elites expecting to survive nuclear winter. Up until recently climate concerns have largely displaced the issues of nuclear weaponry. That must stop. Movements against nuclear power and nuclear weapons have a long history of facing repressive attacks and mounting cross-border collaboration. Enormous sums are already invested even in the shoddy maintenance of our nuclear arsenal, and many of Trump's opponents are committed to dangerous modernization of that arsenal. Those funds might better go to meeting the long-term climate crisis. Intensifying climate deterioration risks exacerbating cross border tensions and provoking war, which will surely some day become nuclear. These issues and movements need each other.</p><p style=""><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/11/29/president-trump-nuclear-business-usual" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p><p style="">John Buell lives in Southwest Harbor, Maine and writes on labor and environmental issues. His most recent book, published by Palgrave in August 2011, is "<em><a href="http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=524042" target="_blank">Politics, Religion, and Culture in an Anxious Age</a>."</em> He may be reached at <a href="mailto:jbuell@acadia.net" target="_blank">jbuell@acadia.net</a>.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone National Park. Tom Murphy / National Geographic Creative
By Jake Johnson
Yes, Donald Trump is president. And yes, he has access to the nuclear codes—a fact that has become all too vivid in recent weeks. But many allowed themselves to forget, if only for a brief moment, about the man in the White House on Thursday to hone their attention on what is potentially an even more horrifying development.
As USA Today reported, new research indicates that the supervolcano resting beneath Yellowstone National Park "may blow sooner than thought, an eruption that could wipe out life on the planet."
<p style="">USA Today's Matthew Diebel noted that Arizona State University researchers have "analyzed minerals in fossilized ash from the most recent mega-eruption and found changes in temperature and composition that had only taken a few decades. Until now, the magazine reported, geologists had thought it would take centuries for the supervolcano to make the transition."</p><p>"The discovery, which was presented at a <a href="http://iavcei2017.org/" target="_blank">recent volcanology conference</a>, comes on top of a 2011 study that found that ground above the magma reservoir in Yellowstone had bulged by about 10 inches in seven years," Diebel adds.</p><p style="">Scientists believe that the volcano's last supereruption took place around 631,000 years ago. As the New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/science/yellowstone-volcano-eruption.html" target="_blank">noted</a>, researchers "suspect that a supereruption scars the planet every 100,000 years, causing many to ask when we can next expect such an explosive planet-changing event."</p><p>Though no one is attempting to put a time frame on the next eruption, Hannah Shamloo of Arizona State University observed that it is "shocking how little time is required to take a volcanic system from being quiet and sitting there to the edge of an eruption."</p><p style="">Amid the perpetual chaos of the American news cycle and the looming threat of war between <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear-war">nuclear</a>-armed nations, commentators on social media met the possibly dire new research with a mixture of alarm and somber humor.</p><p style="">"We are all just living at the mercy of the supervolcano under Yellowstone," <a href="https://twitter.com/joshfoxfilm/status/918522088549478400" target="_blank">concluded</a> film director and environmentalist Josh Fox. "Puts things into perspective, doesn't it?"</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="8caec" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KJEODA1576663721"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="918552418836762625" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">This story will help you stop worrying about Trump for a moment
https://t.co/OQmVSrgyLr</div> — Ben Wikler (@Ben Wikler)<a href="https://twitter.com/benwikler/statuses/918552418836762625">1507834937.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed" style=""></p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="f9a83" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3B2AST1576663721"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="918518860487233538" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Me: This week really blows
Science: Boy do we have some news for you
https://t.co/2MjMMwFHlb</div> — Kate Aronoff (@Kate Aronoff)<a href="https://twitter.com/KateAronoff/statuses/918518860487233538">1507826936.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p>
<p style=""><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/12/forget-trump-huge-volcano-could-literally-wipe-out-life-earth" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p><p style=""><br></p><p style=""><br></p><p style=""><br></p><p style=""><br></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Nobel Prize Winners Name Trump and His 'Ignorance' as Top Threats to World Population
01 September 2017
Popular
Wikipedia
By Julia Conley
Along with nuclear war and climate change, President Donald Trump has made the list of what Nobel Laureates consider to be major risks to the world population.
In a survey of 50 Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, medicine and economics, more than a third of the respondents said damage to the environment brought about by issues like over-population and climate change, was the biggest threat to mankind. Twenty-three percent said nuclear war was their top concern, while six percent said theirs was "the ignorance of political leaders"—with two of the winners naming Trump specifically.
<p style="">Peter Agre, winner of the chemistry Prize in 2003, told the Times Higher Education, which <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/do-great-minds-think-alike-the-the-lindau-nobel-laureates-survey#survey-answer" target="_blank">conducted </a>the poll and released the results Thursday, that "Trump could play a villain in a Batman movie—everything he does is wicked or selfish." He also called the president "extraordinarily uninformed."</p><p style="">The survey also found serious concerns among the respondents about the brand of populism pushed by Trump as well as right-wing European leaders. Forty percent of the Nobel winners called Trump-style populism, characterized by his distrust of climate science and the media, and political polarization "a grave threat to scientific progress, while 30 percent say that they are a serious threat."</p><p style="">"Today, facts seem to be questioned by many people who prefer to believe rumors rather than well-established scientific facts," said Jean-Pierre Sauvage, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry last year.</p><p style="">Another laureate added, "it is a disaster when people start believing things that are false and, even worse, when governments induce them to believe facts that are evidently wrong and ignore all evidence-based, scientifically proven data."</p><p style="">The Times Higher Education noted that "Agre is particularly worried by how Trump 'flaunts his ignorance' to appeal to a group of Americans who are happy to dismiss the opinions of scientists."</p><p style="">It's not the first time some of the world's top scientists and doctors have publicly expressed disapproval of the president. Earlier this year, 62 Nobel Laureates signed a <a href="https://notoimmigrationban.com/" target="_blank">petition</a> denouncing Trump's executive order directing U.S. agencies to ban travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S.</p><p style=""> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/31/nobel-prize-winners-name-trump-and-his-ignorance-top-threats-world-population" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Nuclear weapon test Bravo on Bikini Atoll. Wikimedia Commons
By Bunny McDiarmid
Looking back, one of the key moments that was to define both my professional and personal path was the moment I stepped onto the small atoll of Rongelap, in the Pacific Ocean.
It was May 17, 1985 and I was 24 years old.
<p style="">At first glance, it appeared as if I had reached paradise; sandy beaches with coconut trees, water so crystal clear you could see the bottom, meters deep. And yet nothing was as it should be.</p><p style="">Waiting for us on the beach, with flowers, was the local community. The women held a banner reading "we love the future of our children."</p><p style="">I was there with the crew of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, to help them relocate. Their beloved island was making them sick, and what you couldn't see here could kill you.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image" style=""><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xMDYwODU2Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNDM2MjMwMn0.aPpNk1oye8UxHPcsrTT6L-oB7Fi_-LcfpNOSXk0jI-E/img.jpg?width=980" id="f65ad" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="51136d219d24569348910a8b377946a8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><small placeholder="add caption..." class="image-media media-caption">Bunny McDiarmid during the evacuation on May 17, 1985</small></p><p style="">Back in March 1954, the atoll received <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/02/bikini-atoll-nuclear-test-60-years" target="_blank">a massive dose of radiation</a> when the U.S. tested its most powerful <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear">nuclear</a> weapon. The test was <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/02/27/castle-bravo-the-largest-u-s-nuclear-explosion/" target="_blank">code named "Castle Bravo"</a> and the people of Rongelap were given no warning and offered no protection.</p><p style="">Radioactive fallout rained down on the island, falling for days. It dissolved into the water supplies, into the sea, and onto the houses, gardens and people. It contaminated them all.</p><p style="">In the tropics, where people spend a lot of time outside, the children played in the fine white ash, thinking it was snow.</p><p style="">In the years that followed, it became clear to the people that their island was no longer safe. The impact of the radiation poisoning, impossible to clean, was revealing itself with time. The number of children that had their damaged thyroids removed, the number of women that had children born with severe deformities, known as "jellyfish babies," was impossible to ignore.</p><p style="">They no longer trusted what the U.S. military scientists were telling them about the safety of their island. They were left with no choice but to leave, with little hope of ever returning.</p><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image" style=""><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xMDYwODIwMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzOTY3Njg5Mn0.CT0tPd4itEapDNWcKQsJzdzr1jO3J24duJBs4wvX0Gw/img.jpg?width=980" id="0dccc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3977bf90baae2d45b0616b3fd82b9b9a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><small placeholder="add caption..." class="image-media media-caption">Evacuation of Rongelap Islanders to Mejato by the crew of the Rainbow Warrior</small></p><p style="">The contrast between the beautiful setting and the criminal irresponsibility of the U.S. military who used these people as guinea pigs is still heartbreaking this many years later.</p><p style="">Aug. 29, marked the <a href="http://www.un.org/en/events/againstnucleartestsday/" target="_blank">International Day Against Nuclear Tests</a>.</p><p style="">And while every day during the past few months stands as a stark reminder as to why nuclear tests and nuclear weapons are so dangerous, today is a good day to reflect on the lessons we've learned in fighting nuclear tests, and, most importantly, how we carry on the fight to rid the world of this evil invention.</p><p>This year, we do so with renewed impetus.</p><p style="">As the last few months has revealed, the majority of the world's nuclear warheads are in the hands of men for whom the idea of using them is becoming thinkable.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="44c48" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="SYV20I1504109418"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="895581786549432321" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">72 Years After Bombing of Nagasaki ... 15,000 Nuclear Weapons Still Exist in the World Today https://t.co/4dcCaKqZ8j @foeeurope @EnvAm</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/895581786549432321">1502358311.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p><p style="">It is perhaps hard to imagine that not so very long ago, nuclear tests were common and held regularly. Hailed as a benchmark of scientific progress and the ultimate guarantee of security, nuclear weapons have been tested <a href="http://www.un.org/en/events/againstnucleartestsday/" target="_blank">more than 2000 times since July 16, 1945</a>, when the "Trinity" test was conducted by the U.S. army in New Mexico.</p><p>In the 60s and 70s, the number of tests peaked, before decreasing in number but continuing steadily until the late 90s.</p><p style="">The countries conducting the most tests were the U.S. with 1,054 tests, the USSR with 715, France with 210, and the UK and China with 45 tests each.</p><p style="">Public outrage and the relentless efforts of determined individuals across the world eventually led major powers to stop testing in the physical environment. Greenpeace first set sail as an organization in 1971 to stop nuclear weapons testing and the role that we played in this, alongside so many, fills me with pride.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image" style=""><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xMDYwODIwNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0OTg0MDIxMX0.uJuia9VKDGstXqr9wEvfZOfnV5gd095sF7r7-lNwN60/img.jpg?width=980" id="576e4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e464b3377e2874fb36a0d05ff8827dc7" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><small placeholder="add caption..." class="image-media media-caption">Protest at the UN building in Geneva, encouraging nations to sign the CTBT</small></p><p>In 1996, major states signed the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty" target="_blank">Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty</a> pledging to discontinue all nuclear testing. Although the treaty has never entered into force, nuclear testing essentially screeched to a halt with its adoption.</p><p>It forged an international zero-tolerance stance against nuclear testing. The handful of nuclear tests conducted after 1996 received universal condemnation and unanimously adopted UN Security Council sanctions.</p><p style="">The only country to have performed nuclear tests in the 21st century is North Korea—completing <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-bargaining-factbo-idUSKBN178127" target="_blank">five tests</a> in the past 11 years.</p><p style="">With the end of the Cold War, and with major powers signing various treaties committing them to disarm, media and public interest died down. We entered a period where many were living under the false pretense that the threat of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear-war">nuclear war</a> was something of the past.</p><p>And yet, the countries that have committed to disarming have not done so.</p><p style="">They have stalled, found excuses or blatantly ignored their commitments. The result is stark. Nearly 25 years after the end of the Cold War there are still an estimated 16,300 nuclear weapons at 98 sites in 14 countries. Rather than disarm, the nine nuclear-armed states continue to spend a fortune maintaining and modernizing their arsenals.</p><p style="">That false pretense under which we have been living has been shred to pieces during the last few months.</p><p style="">Nuclear war, it seems, is no longer inconceivable.</p><p style="">President Trump, who is the ultimate commander of the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal, (<a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat" target="_blank">believed to consist of 6,800 warheads</a>) has threatened North Korea with "fire and fury." North Korea has threatened to attack the U.S. territory of Guam, in the Pacific Ocean. The threat of nuclear attack has become a bargaining chip, a threat spoken about all too easily and lightly.</p><p>These latest developments fill me with anger and even despair. Have we learned nothing from the past?</p><p style="">But I try to see the positive. At least the veil has been lifted, once again we are reminded of how high the stakes are, how fragile is our existence in a world where nuclear weapons are still so prevalent.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image" style=""><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xMDYwODIwNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjE4ODIzNn0.kXxr7OBFIznwbuIhUO_NZX47hRE6tKTFzHVRKX3Ifps/img.jpg?width=980" id="f449f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c6af4821e1a19813956af5d7fad18ddc" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><small placeholder="add caption..." class="image-media media-caption">Activists hold a banner in front of the embassy of North Korea in Bern in 2006.</small></p><p style="">These weapons of mass destruction are designed for one purpose only: war. Their use and even the threat of their use poses an existential threat to all life on our precious planet.<br></p><p>The solution to the current crisis is clear: negotiation and diplomacy. Only this can bring us back from the brink. But this is not enough, we can wait no longer for the countries in possession of nuclear weapons to disarm.</p><p style="">In July, a historic milestone was reached at the United Nations in New York when 122 countries voted in favor of a new treaty banning nuclear weapons.</p><p style="">In September, the treaty will open for signature. Nuclear armed states and many of their allies have boycotted the treaty and have done all they could to try and derail the negotiation. They failed, but their absence is significant as unless a country ratifies the treaty, it is not bound by it.</p><p style="">Nevertheless, the importance of the treaty is enormous—it will make it harder for the proponents of nuclear weapons to describe them as a legitimate and useful means to provide security. The treaty sets the benchmark for a world where nuclear weapons are considered as a threat to security, not an avenue to it.</p><p style="">In this time where the threat of war has become thinkable again, world governments must use it as an impetus to come to their senses and disarm.</p><p style=""><em>Bunny McDiarmid is the executive director of <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/" target="_blank">Greenpeace International</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
72 Years After Bombing of Nagasaki ... 15,000 Nuclear Weapons Still Exist in the World Today
09 August 2017
Energy
A cloud rises over Nagasaki, Japan, in the moments after the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Aug. 9, 1945. Wikimedia Commons
By Susan Southard
Wednesday is the 72nd anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. At 11:02 a.m. Aug. 9, 1945, a five-ton plutonium bomb exploded a third of a mile above the city. Its blast winds tore through the city at two and a half times the speed of a Category 5 hurricane.
Two-year-old Masao Tomonaga was asleep in his home while his mother worked in another room. Within seconds of the blast, their house imploded on top of them. Remarkably, both survived. At 1.7 miles from the bomb's hypocenter, they were out of reach of its most intense infrared heat rays, which instantly carbonized human and animal flesh and vaporized the internal organs of those directly beneath the bomb.
<p>Tomonaga's mother pushed her way through the rubble to find him. They had minutes to escape to a hillside shrine before fires sped through their neighborhood, leaving their flattened home in ashes.</p><p>Six weeks ago, 74-year-old Tomonaga, now a leading specialist on long-term radiation effects on the human body, flew to New York as Nagasaki's official representative in support of a breakthrough international <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear-war">nuclear weapons</a> ban treaty, adopted at the United Nations on July 7.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><p>Backed by 122 nations and with strong support from civil society organizations across the globe, the accord is the world's first comprehensive treaty banning the use, threat of use and production of nuclear weapons. It places nuclear weapons on the same legal footing as all other weapons of mass destruction—including chemical and biological weapons, landmines and cluster munitions, which have long been outlawed.<br></p><p>The treaty was not an act of naiveté. Its proponents knew that nuclear-armed and nuclear-defended nations—including Japan—would vehemently reject the ban, defending their position that nuclear weapons prevent nuclear war. The ban was negotiated too with clear understandings of the current heightened tensions between the U.S. and Russia, because of North Korea's nuclear weapons development and testing, and <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics-government/donald-trump-PEBSL000163-topic.html" target="_blank">President Trump</a>'s nuclear posturing.</p><p>The strategy—as was successfully implemented with landmines—is to delegitimize and ultimately eliminate the most destructive and inhumane weapons made. After treaty ratification in September, the next step is to convince first one, then other nuclear-armed or defended nations to abide by it. Similar treaties banning weapons of mass destruction have resulted in policy changes even by countries that haven't signed them—including the U.S., which now follows the landmines ban without having signed that treaty.</p><p>Testimony like Tomonaga's can only help. Using his experience as a survivor, radiation scientist and physician who has treated <em>hibakusha</em> (atomic bomb-affected people) for nearly 50 years, Tomonaga gave a statement before the United Nations that countered vague images of nuclear war with details of its terrifying acute and long-term human consequences.</p><p>Within weeks of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, adults and children began experiencing mysterious and excruciating symptoms: vomiting, fever, dizziness, bleeding gums and hair loss. Purple spots began appearing all over their bodies—the effects of high-dose, whole-body radiation exposure. Many died within a week of the first symptoms.</p><p>Over the next nine months, pregnant women whose fetuses had been exposed in utero suffered spontaneous abortions, stillbirths and infant deaths. Many newborns developed physical and mental disabilities.</p><p>By 1948, childhood and adult <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/diseases-illnesses/leukemia-HEDAI0000054-topic.html" target="_blank">leukemia</a> rates began increasing among <em>hibakusha—</em>and these rates remained high for decades. At highest risk were children under 10 within a mile of the bombing, who developed leukemia at a rate 18 times greater than the general population.</p><p style="">By 1955, numerous other <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/diseases-illnesses/cancer-HEDAI0000010-topic.html" target="_blank">cancers</a> also appeared at rates far higher than for non-<em>hibakusha</em>. Even today, the bomb's radiation continues to ravage the bodies of aging survivors, now in their 70s and 80s, who are developing a special type of leukemia, MDS (Myelodysplastic syndrome). Scientists are still studying second- and third-generation<em> hibakusha</em> for genetic effects potentially passed down from their parents and grandparents, reminding us how much we still don't understand about the insidious nature of radiation exposure on the human body.</p><p style="">The use of a nuclear weapon, designed to inflict catastrophic harm to vast numbers of people, would violate international law, which prohibits the targeting of civilians during wartime. Yet almost 15,000 nuclear weapons still exist in the world today; more than 4,000 are actively deployed across the globe. Whether by intentional military choice, a nuclear accident or an act of terrorism, we risk far worse humanitarian and environmental disasters than Nagasaki and Hiroshima.</p><p style="">After decades of monumental efforts to champion Tomonaga's vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, this treaty fills the legal gap in the prohibition of such weapons and puts us on the path to their total elimination. Perhaps now there is a chance that after a 72-year reign of nuclear terror, the narrative of nuclear war that started in 1945 will come to a close.</p><p style=""> <em><em><em>Susan Southard is the author of "Nagasaki: Life After Nuclear War," which was the recipient of the Lukas Book Prize and the Dayton Literary Peace Prize.</em></em></em></p><p style=""><em><em><em></em>This piece originally ran as an op-ed in the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-southard-nagasaki-20170809-story.html" target="_blank">Los Angeles Tim</a></em><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-southard-nagasaki-20170809-story.html" target="_blank">es</a>. Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/08/09/72-years-after-bombing-nagasaki-there-are-15000-nuclear-weapons-world" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
72 Years After Hiroshima, Where Is Japan's Commitment to End Nuclear Weapons?
06 August 2017
Popular
The "original" Greenpeace crew on-board the Phyllis Cormack on their voyage to Amchitka Island. Robert Keziere / Greenpeace
By Yuko Yoneda
It started with just 12 of them. With a bold mission, this group of activists set sail to Amchitka island off Alaska to protest the detonation of an underground U.S. nuclear test. It was September 1971, and though the mission was initially unsuccessful, it was the beginning of what became Greenpeace, and just one of the many issues—the elimination of nuclear weapons—that the environmental organization would campaign endlessly against.
<p><span></span>Fast forward to 2017, and what was once a hard-fought battle and one of Greenpeace's legacy issues, has now become a successful defeat. On July 7, the United Nations adopted the "<a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/nuclear-weapons-banned-historic-UN-treaty/blog/59807/" target="_blank">Nuclear Weapons Treaty</a>" with an overwhelming majority—an epoch—making agreement that prohibits not only the development, experiment, manufacture, possession and use of nuclear weapons, but also the "threat to use." Nuclear and chemical weapons and anti-personnel landmines and cluster bombs were also banned. The treaty will be open for signature by states on September 20.</p><p>To our disappointment, however, Japan did not join the 122 countries or two-thirds of the United Nations member countries, that stood up to stop nuclear weapons. The peculiar absence of Japan, whose preamble explicitly recognizes "unacceptable suffering of and harm caused to the <a href="http://www.undocs.org/en/a/conf.229/2017/L.3/Rev.1" target="_blank">victims of the use of nuclear weapons</a> (<em>Hibakusha</em>) as well as those affected by the testing of nuclear weapons" begs explanation. </p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xMDIwOTIwOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1ODEzNjIxOH0.W0jKPhYRFJ6p-sbmJkl32hwYjdYxu9Zuka6_64mgBpA/img.jpg?width=980" id="150f4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3844dfbd6d7bb28c52928c8dd79781a9" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><small placeholder="add caption..." class="image-media media-caption">Greenpeace activists hold up flags of the nuclear nations along with a 5 meter high mock nuclear bomb outside the United Nations Conference on Disarmament (1996).</small><small placeholder="add photo credit..." class="image-media media-photo-credit">David Adair / Greenpeace / Ex-Press</small></p><p>The <a href="http://www.mofa.go.jp/press/kaiken/kaiken4e_000363.html" target="_blank">Government of Japan expressed a concern</a> that the treaty that was negotiated only among non-nuclear weapon states could create "a more decisive divide" between the states with and without nuclear weapons. From a standpoint of realpolitik of the Cold War era, Japan is under an American nuclear umbrella, and as such, would violate a treaty prohibiting the "threat to use" if it were to be a signatory. Therefore Japan sides with the nuclear weapons states (the U.S., Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries that rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella.<br></p><p>The adoption of this historic treaty by an overwhelming majority of the UN membership, nonetheless, represents a hard-won victory for people such as the <em>Hibakusha</em> (Japanese word for the surviving victims of the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), victims of American nuclear tests and their descendants , and grassroots activists who worked tirelessly against the European nuclear deployment and <a href="http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/u" target="_blank">uranium mining in Australia</a>. The treaty is a long lasting legacy of their testimonies, protests and actions of the past decades, and keeps a hope alive for realization of the nuclear free world.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xMDIwOTIxMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MjQ0NjMwNX0.vrJPzLslPpk9KD7eVNRKIA4ZzZdAshWyux2_d8foRdc/img.jpg?width=980" id="cf853" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="905fc2b41694d6baefc04f63eb475fca" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><small placeholder="add caption..." class="image-media media-caption">Protest at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington D.C. (2016)</small><small placeholder="add photo credit..." class="image-media media-photo-credit">Ian Foulk / Greenpeace</small></p><p><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/this-treaty-would-ban-nuclear-weapons/blog/59085/" target="_blank">Setsuko Thurlow</a>, a Hiroshima atomic bomb victim who now lives in Canada, told delegates of the treaty negotiations:<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"I want you to feel the presence of not only the future generations, who will benefit from your negotiations to ban nuclear weapons, but to feel a cloud of witnesses from Hiroshima and Nagasaki."</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We have no doubt that this treaty can—and will—change the world."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xMDIwOTIxMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjE0MjA5N30.mBvDbS8a4ddFRoJp1iLALD8Hlmg66aSKvCOPk4J2dXs/img.jpg?width=980" id="4d648" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d2b174e881e2188d4db2d26816278b31" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><small placeholder="add caption..." class="image-media media-caption">Peace doves released on the 60th Anniversary of the Hiroshima atomic bombing.</small><small placeholder="add photo credit..." class="image-media media-photo-credit">Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert / Greenpeace</small></p><p>On the 72nd anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, we stand in solidarity with the survivors and those across the world who have campaigned against nuclear weaponry and call for Japan to join the treaty. The elimination of nuclear weapons has been the cause that Greenpeace campaigned so passionately and heavily for since 1971. As the only country in the world hit by a nuclear attack, Japan's commitment to the treaty would not only be a long-fought win for the country's tainted history, but also an important step towards a future world that is ultimately safe and nuclear free.<br></p><p><em>Yuko Yoneda is the Executive Director at Greenpeace Japan.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
iStock
By Tim Radford
Four U.S. scientists have just introduced one more good reason not to launch a nuclear war. It would not simply guarantee the mutual destruction of the participants. It would also precipitate catastrophic climate change.
And, they argue in the journal Environment Magazine, even a single nuclear missile strike could darken the skies, chill the atmosphere, stop rainfall, ruin harvests and cost a billion lives.
<p><span></span>Observers with memories that stretch back to the Cold War and the arms race between the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) powers on the one hand and the USSR on the other will know something of this already.</p><p><span></span>In 1983 the astronomer Carl Sagan and colleagues <a href="http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ackerman/Articles/Turco_Nuclear_Winter_83.pdf" target="_blank">introduced the idea of global annihilation</a> or at least the end of human civilization, in a "nuclear winter" as a consequence of a nuclear weapons exchange.</p><p><span></span>Years later, as the Soviet Union collapsed and the Russian Federation was born, the same scientists did their calculations again, and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-theorists-pull-back.html" target="_blank">reduced the threat</a> to a kind of "nuclear autumn."</p><p><span></span><strong>Nuclear Club</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Eight nations now possess a nuclear arsenal; the US, Russia and China all have nuclear weapons big enough to precipitate a nuclear calamity, and a ninth, North Korea, now claims to have nuclear capability.</p><p><span></span>This prompted researchers and political scientists from the University of Nebraska Lincoln to revisit the question, based on a theoretical study of the effect of one hundred 15-kiloton warheads, with the explosive power of 150,000 tons of TNT.</p><p><span></span>Once exploded, such a strike would incinerate 1,300 square kilometres of a city and its surrounds. This would be quite enough to push five million metric tons of black carbon smoke particles into the stratosphere."</p><p><span></span>This would be enough to screen solar radiation, reduce the agricultural crop season by between 10 and 40 days a year for at least five years, and lower global temperatures to a point lower than normal for at least 25 years.</p><p><span></span>In the very short term, this cold snap would be colder than anything for the last 1,000 years. Rainfall would decrease by as much as 20 percent to 80 percent in the Asian monsoon region.</p><p><span></span><span style="background-color: initial; color: rgb(119, 119, 119); font-style: italic;"></span>The American southwest and western Australia could become 20 percent to 60 percent drier. South America and southern Africa, too, would see less rain. This global "nuclear drought" and the resulting famines "could kill up to a billion people from starvation.</p><p><span></span>The most immediate victims would be those in countries that are already poor or food-insecure. And, the scientists warn, should a warhead fall upon a nuclear power facility "the spread of toxic radionuclides and their long-term effects would be greatly magnified."</p><p>The drop in precipitation would, they warn, also increase conflict in developing regions, "although global temperature reduction may reduce social violence in the United States and other developed countries."</p><p><span></span>"We're losing our memory of the Cold War and we're losing our memory of how important it is to get this right," said <a href="http://polisci.unl.edu/tyler-white" target="_blank">Tyler White, a political scientist concerned with international security and nuclear policy</a> and one of the authors. </p><p><span></span>"Even a conflict that doesn't involve the United States can impact us and people around the world." </p><p><span></span><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="http://climatenewsnetwork.net/nuclear-war-would-set-off-climate-catastrophe/" target="_blank">Climate News Network</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less