Fallout Risk Mapped, Published 1956
Source: New York Times
Questions:
1. The article directly mentions the possible deadly impact of the fallout, and the article was published in 1956. Given that open air nuclear explosions continued on American soil until 1962 why do you think these were continued?
2. If you were a citizen at the time would you be concerned more about the immediate explosion, as mentioned in the article or the aftermath with the fallout and poisonous gases?
3. Imagine that you work for the AEC and are receiving questions about open air nuclear explosions, and people were citing this article. What would you use to justify the tests?
4. Take the other side of the debate and pretend you are a reporter talking to the AEC spokesperson. What are some questions you would ask?
5. What do you think would be worse, being at the epicenter (middle) of the explosion, or the effects 550 miles away?
6. What tone of voice does the article use, is it concerned, is it matter-of-fact? Why do you think the author choose to write in the fashion that he did? (Most authors of this time were men so I am using the masculine pronoun here)
Radiation Test Planned, Published 1961
Source: New York Times
1. How does this test differ from the example above? Use evidence from both to construct your answer.
2. Given the slightly different nature of the test, if you were a reporter questioning a member of the AEC what would you ask about the safety of the test now?
3. What is the specific subject of the test, why do you think that despite the potential risks that many people might support it?
4. If you were a citizen of Washington D.C., many thousands of miles away from this test would you support it or oppose it? Use examples from the article to answer the question.
5. Imagining that you live only a few miles away from the radiation test site what are some of the points that you might bring up to the citizen of Washington D.C. to persuade them one way or the other?
6. Finally, think from the perspective of a local construction worker paid to build the test site. What are some pros of working that job, what are some cons. Remember, as we discussed in the introduction the rural west is a very poor area and that lower SES members of the rural class are often not formally educated (especially in the 1950s).
Nuclear Test Ban Proposed, Published 1962 (page 2)
Source: New York Times
Questions:
1. Given what you've learned about the world in the 1950s and 1960s what are some reasons that the 30 "non-nuclear" countries wished to stop nuclear tests?
2. Why do you think that Great Britain and America would counter-propose a treaty that included inspections?
3. Think for a second, why would one country wish to end all explosions but wish to have no inspections to verify that these explosions have ended? This is the Soviet's position. What do you think about it?
4. Given that there are so many parties invested in the debate do you expect this debate to reach an amicable (agreeable, peaceful and friendly) solution in the next week?
5. Think about all the proposals, which proposal seems the most reasonable?
6. What could be some reasons that some countries pushing for a quick resolution to this issue, and others are less worried and willing to debate particulars?
Source: New York Times
Questions:
1. Given what you've learned about the world in the 1950s and 1960s what are some reasons that the 30 "non-nuclear" countries wished to stop nuclear tests?
2. Why do you think that Great Britain and America would counter-propose a treaty that included inspections?
3. Think for a second, why would one country wish to end all explosions but wish to have no inspections to verify that these explosions have ended? This is the Soviet's position. What do you think about it?
4. Given that there are so many parties invested in the debate do you expect this debate to reach an amicable (agreeable, peaceful and friendly) solution in the next week?
5. Think about all the proposals, which proposal seems the most reasonable?
6. What could be some reasons that some countries pushing for a quick resolution to this issue, and others are less worried and willing to debate particulars?
Questions:
1. Knowing what you already know about the deaths that were caused by fallout in America do you find the government's argument convincing?
2. Pretending that you are a citizen of America in the 1960s would you find the government's argument convincing?
3. Brainstorm several reasons on a t-chart why the government might wish to give us this (obviously false) report that fallout posed no risk to the population?
4. Imagine that you are one of the citizens who has consumed milk from a Utah dairy farmer. Would this change your opinion on the veracity (truthfulness) of the government's argument about fallout?
5. Consider the tone that this article takes. Is the tone appropriate for such a serious topic, or is a light and playful tone and inappropriate?
6. Does the inclusion of information about the dairy farmers' voluntary pulling milk off the market make the government's argument more or less defensible?
Fallout on Thyroid, Published in 1965
Source: New York Times
1. Using evidence from the articles you've already read, and including this one, predict what the results of the study of children with lumps on their thyroids will be.
2. Imagine that you are one of the parents of these children and you took your daughter to watch a "nuclear sunrise" one morning. Now your child has lumps on her thyroid. What is going through your head?
3. Put yourself in the shoes of one of these children with lumps. Imagine all the hustle and bustle with famous men in white jackets coming in from all over the country. Are you confident that these men will solve the case and cure your lumps?
4. Now put your feet in the shoes of one of your classmates forty years later. Some Native-Americans are proposing to store nuclear waste just a few miles away from your state's most populous city. How might your experiences with the federal government, nuclear fallout, and thyroid problems mentioned in the article color your understanding?
5. Again, using information in the four previous articles, and using information in this article do you think there is much of a chance that the abnormalities in the throats of these students are due to benign (non-threatening) causes?
6. Do you believe that "no conclusions are warranted at this time" as the health service reported? Conversely, do you feel that the reporter had a duty to make conclusions about the possible reasons the students are developing these abnormalities.
The Dog that Smelled Fallout, Published in 1965
Source: New York Times
1. Is this dog worth 10 million dollars?
2. What does this article tell us about how scientists were viewed in the newspapers at the time of publishing, the mid 1960s? Make inferences in order to deduce your answer.
3. How do you think this man trained his dog to smell fallout. Conversely do you find this scientist to be a credible source. Use evidence from the newspaper report to support your findings.
4. Given the dog's potentially harmful occupation, smelling nuclear fallout do you think the courts are likely to support the scientist's lawsuit?
5. Is there any information in the article that might suggest to us how valuable this scientist is to the Air Force?
6. Given the misinformation surrounding nuclear fallout, as evidenced by the contradicting information in the above articles do you find it possible that people might find this dog's occupation to be safe and even expected from a dog during the Cold War?
