Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Matt325McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:30:18ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 10 Questions/Comments2011-03-24T04:35:37Z<p>Matt325: /* General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Pursell article ==<br />
<br />
On page 213, it was quite interesting that a main factor in pursuing nuclear energy was not necessarily to improve the quality of life in America. It is proposed that atomic energy was pursued to negate the Soviet Union’s possible use of it to convert developing nations to its side. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
Smith’s essay discusses the advertising of atomic energy. He claims, “Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, and as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (216-17). The AEC and other governmental agencies had to reassure the public that the new technology could serve another purpose besides destroying a city. Smith mentions that a AEC deputy director claimed, “‘in its civilian uses the energy of the atom should be described as ‘nuclear energy’ rather than ‘atomic energy’” (Pursell 217). “Atomic energy” is too closely associated with the mushroom cloud image and the fatalities of the Japanese. “Nuclear energy” sounds more like an alternative energy source rather than material used in a bomb. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Video of nuclear blasts ==<br />
<br />
The video that was posted on the readings page was incredibly emotional and thought provoking. I had no idea that there were that many tests of nuclear devices, especially by the United States. It seems that once you knew that it worked, i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would not need to keep testing. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly harrowing to see how many nuclear explosions there have been. I agree with Kyle- I had no idea that the United States had done so many explosions. It seems, when comparing the numbers of explosions in the United States to explosions in Russia, our nearest competitor (1032 to 715) and seemingly biggest fear was nowhere even close to the number of explosions. I had had the impression that the Cold War and arms race was a lot closer than it actually was. I do, howevever, have a question, what kinds of explosions were these? Were these all tests, and if so, what are the magnitudes of those tests?<br />
<br />
I also found the video of showing the number for nuclear explosions conducted around the world interesting and a little disturbing. The fact that the United States conducted over a thousand tests in 53 years, more than most of the other countries combined, was a little disturbing for me. I agree with Kyle that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs worked that what reason is there to keep testing. Another thing that caught my attention, shown at the end of the clip, was the location in which other countries were testing. The U.S. seemed to have kept the majority of their testing in the same location and within our own boarders. Seeing some countries testing in Scandinavia, Australia, and parts of Africa made me wonder why there? In some years seeing the amount of lights blink and the number rising gave the feeling of “Holy S^*#.”<br />
--Mike Roche<br />
<br />
I can't add much more then what has already been said, but for the record, I will say wow! I had no idea that we had tested that many times in those 53 years. I too am curious to know what type of testing some of them were, and what impact, if any, have the more recent tests had. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
I think one of the major factors contributing to the large amounts of nuclear tests by both the United States and Russia was the constant fear of falling behind one another. Both governments were terrified of the other discovering a new type of atomic weapon, or some other technology, that could win the war for them. The US was aware of Russia's nuclear tests, and though Russia was slightly behind, there was a lot of fear in the American government of being surpassed technologically, allowing the Russians to launch a pre-emtive strike. With that in mind, the number of atomic tests makes sense, as both nations could figure out new ways of perfecting the bomb, while "flexing their guns" at the one another. - Will D<br />
<br />
I did not realize that so many tests had been done, especially after seeing the effects on Japan. I knew testing had been done prior to bombing Japan, and that some testing had been done during the Cold War, but not to that extent. I also did not realize that the United States did so much more testing than any other country. I thought that the competition went back and forth much more than this video showed. I am very curious to know if there were any affects of these tests, and if so what kind. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I found the video to be rather terrifying, as the numbers went up so did my disbelief. After learning about, as well as seeing the affects of the atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I find it hard to understand why there would be continued testing. I can recognize the fear and paranoia that the U.S and Soviet Union experienced during the Cold war, and yes I realize that it is almost always better to be the side with the bigger stick, but for the U.S to conduct testing of 1000+ bombs simply doesn’t feel right. And of course, I have to wonder what effects all the testing has had on the environment. What did all these tests accomplish? --Kathleen Mead<br />
<br />
I too am shocked by the number of tests performed not only by the United States but also by other countries. However, we should recall the “Atomic Age” and how nuclear energy was publicized as a positive alternative to other energy sources and its effects were downplayed. The Pursell reading continuously mentioned how the agencies tried to spin the horrible effects of radiation. In Michael Smith’s article, he mentions the AEC Commissioner, Theos J. Thompson’s idea, “To oppose nuclear technology because low-level radiation might be detrimental struck Thompson as woefully enervated: ‘It is as though we decided not to get out bed anymore because we might slip on the way to the bathroom’” (Pursell 229). I think Thompson took that one a little too far. Radiation poisoning is SLIGHTLY more dangerous than slipping on the way to the bathroom. And I say this with the authority of being a clumsy person.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I thought this was very interesting. Like Meagan, I didn't know quite how many tests were really being done, but you can especially see the difference during the Cold War period, especially in 1957-1958. We can also clearly see that the United States was the leader in all of these tests, with a close follow by the Soviet Union. We can also see where these tests were done with shows that a lot were done in the Pacific, and a lot were done in the Soviet Union and along the western United States. I think we can take into account the reasoning behind the U.S. nuclear tests as being not only for military use, but for the potential of commercial nuclear power as well. I do wonder though if doing these tests, if there were any considerations in radiation, especially after the results from Japan at the end of World War II. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
It looks as though the entire west coast of the United States should still be radio active today. It lit up like a christmas tree! I agree with Mike, it was little disturbing to know how many of these bombs were actually used since then. While I was watching this, I asked my girl friend how many nuclear bombs she thought have been used since their beginning in 1945. Her reply was "4". Needless to say she was off by a few...- Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
== General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb ==<br />
<br />
In this modern day, I believe that many students have been desensitized to the entire process of nuclear power and weapons. It is shown as a very powerful thing in modern media, but it is also shown as a very controlled thing. These conceptions are not too different from what the U.S. was trying to achieve in the 50’s and 60’s, which leads me to believe that in the long run, they were successful.<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I agree with Kyle, I think that people today don't fully know or understand the true impact that nuclear weapons can really have on society. And although this may be true, you still see a fear when foreign countries are attempting to create their own nuclear weapons. I think that today though, more people are experiencing the effects nuclear power can have on society ie. the recent Japanese events. But people also are experiencing and using nuclear power for energy, not only for weapons. The atomic bomb has created much power for the United States and any country with nuclear weapons though. And the need for new global policies had to be created to tend to these new powers. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
I personally have always wondered how the radiation really affected the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Those people who survived the blast and were exposed to the radiation probably passed it on when they had children. Then the land was demolished, and the environment suffered tremendously. Water was on short supply from the radiation. The other impact I always thought about is what if another nation dropped an atomic bomb on the United States. As bad as September 11 was, I'm sure that the atomic bomb being dropped in New York and the Pentagon would have had a far more devastating impact. After World War II ended, Japan openly test atomic weapons off the coast of some of the Pacific islands. The United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States all competed in an arms race to see who could build the biggest weapons. The atomic bomb began a whole new kind of warfare, and began widespread fear of a devastating attack on a country's civilians. -Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
In my opinion more worse than good has come to the world due to the creation of the atom bomb. - Matthew Slagle</div>Matt325https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 10 Questions/Comments2011-03-24T04:31:59Z<p>Matt325: /* General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Pursell article ==<br />
<br />
On page 213, it was quite interesting that a main factor in pursuing nuclear energy was not necessarily to improve the quality of life in America. It is proposed that atomic energy was pursued to negate the Soviet Union’s possible use of it to convert developing nations to its side. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
Smith’s essay discusses the advertising of atomic energy. He claims, “Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, and as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (216-17). The AEC and other governmental agencies had to reassure the public that the new technology could serve another purpose besides destroying a city. Smith mentions that a AEC deputy director claimed, “‘in its civilian uses the energy of the atom should be described as ‘nuclear energy’ rather than ‘atomic energy’” (Pursell 217). “Atomic energy” is too closely associated with the mushroom cloud image and the fatalities of the Japanese. “Nuclear energy” sounds more like an alternative energy source rather than material used in a bomb. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Video of nuclear blasts ==<br />
<br />
The video that was posted on the readings page was incredibly emotional and thought provoking. I had no idea that there were that many tests of nuclear devices, especially by the United States. It seems that once you knew that it worked, i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would not need to keep testing. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly harrowing to see how many nuclear explosions there have been. I agree with Kyle- I had no idea that the United States had done so many explosions. It seems, when comparing the numbers of explosions in the United States to explosions in Russia, our nearest competitor (1032 to 715) and seemingly biggest fear was nowhere even close to the number of explosions. I had had the impression that the Cold War and arms race was a lot closer than it actually was. I do, howevever, have a question, what kinds of explosions were these? Were these all tests, and if so, what are the magnitudes of those tests?<br />
<br />
I also found the video of showing the number for nuclear explosions conducted around the world interesting and a little disturbing. The fact that the United States conducted over a thousand tests in 53 years, more than most of the other countries combined, was a little disturbing for me. I agree with Kyle that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs worked that what reason is there to keep testing. Another thing that caught my attention, shown at the end of the clip, was the location in which other countries were testing. The U.S. seemed to have kept the majority of their testing in the same location and within our own boarders. Seeing some countries testing in Scandinavia, Australia, and parts of Africa made me wonder why there? In some years seeing the amount of lights blink and the number rising gave the feeling of “Holy S^*#.”<br />
--Mike Roche<br />
<br />
I can't add much more then what has already been said, but for the record, I will say wow! I had no idea that we had tested that many times in those 53 years. I too am curious to know what type of testing some of them were, and what impact, if any, have the more recent tests had. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
I think one of the major factors contributing to the large amounts of nuclear tests by both the United States and Russia was the constant fear of falling behind one another. Both governments were terrified of the other discovering a new type of atomic weapon, or some other technology, that could win the war for them. The US was aware of Russia's nuclear tests, and though Russia was slightly behind, there was a lot of fear in the American government of being surpassed technologically, allowing the Russians to launch a pre-emtive strike. With that in mind, the number of atomic tests makes sense, as both nations could figure out new ways of perfecting the bomb, while "flexing their guns" at the one another. - Will D<br />
<br />
I did not realize that so many tests had been done, especially after seeing the effects on Japan. I knew testing had been done prior to bombing Japan, and that some testing had been done during the Cold War, but not to that extent. I also did not realize that the United States did so much more testing than any other country. I thought that the competition went back and forth much more than this video showed. I am very curious to know if there were any affects of these tests, and if so what kind. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I found the video to be rather terrifying, as the numbers went up so did my disbelief. After learning about, as well as seeing the affects of the atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I find it hard to understand why there would be continued testing. I can recognize the fear and paranoia that the U.S and Soviet Union experienced during the Cold war, and yes I realize that it is almost always better to be the side with the bigger stick, but for the U.S to conduct testing of 1000+ bombs simply doesn’t feel right. And of course, I have to wonder what effects all the testing has had on the environment. What did all these tests accomplish? --Kathleen Mead<br />
<br />
I too am shocked by the number of tests performed not only by the United States but also by other countries. However, we should recall the “Atomic Age” and how nuclear energy was publicized as a positive alternative to other energy sources and its effects were downplayed. The Pursell reading continuously mentioned how the agencies tried to spin the horrible effects of radiation. In Michael Smith’s article, he mentions the AEC Commissioner, Theos J. Thompson’s idea, “To oppose nuclear technology because low-level radiation might be detrimental struck Thompson as woefully enervated: ‘It is as though we decided not to get out bed anymore because we might slip on the way to the bathroom’” (Pursell 229). I think Thompson took that one a little too far. Radiation poisoning is SLIGHTLY more dangerous than slipping on the way to the bathroom. And I say this with the authority of being a clumsy person.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I thought this was very interesting. Like Meagan, I didn't know quite how many tests were really being done, but you can especially see the difference during the Cold War period, especially in 1957-1958. We can also clearly see that the United States was the leader in all of these tests, with a close follow by the Soviet Union. We can also see where these tests were done with shows that a lot were done in the Pacific, and a lot were done in the Soviet Union and along the western United States. I think we can take into account the reasoning behind the U.S. nuclear tests as being not only for military use, but for the potential of commercial nuclear power as well. I do wonder though if doing these tests, if there were any considerations in radiation, especially after the results from Japan at the end of World War II. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
It looks as though the entire west coast of the United States should still be radio active today. It lit up like a christmas tree! I agree with Mike, it was little disturbing to know how many of these bombs were actually used since then. While I was watching this, I asked my girl friend how many nuclear bombs she thought have been used since their beginning in 1945. Her reply was "4". Needless to say she was off by a few...- Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
== General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb ==<br />
<br />
In this modern day, I believe that many students have been desensitized to the entire process of nuclear power and weapons. It is shown as a very powerful thing in modern media, but it is also shown as a very controlled thing. These conceptions are not too different from what the U.S. was trying to achieve in the 50’s and 60’s, which leads me to believe that in the long run, they were successful.<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I agree with Kyle, I think that people today don't fully know or understand the true impact that nuclear weapons can really have on society. And although this may be true, you still see a fear when foreign countries are attempting to create their own nuclear weapons. I think that today though, more people are experiencing the effects nuclear power can have on society ie. the recent Japanese events. But people also are experiencing and using nuclear power for energy, not only for weapons. The atomic bomb has created much power for the United States and any country with nuclear weapons though. And the need for new global policies had to be created to tend to these new powers. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
I personally have always wondered how the radiation really affected the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Those people who survived the blast and were exposed to the radiation probably passed it on when they had children. Then the land was demolished, and the environment suffered tremendously. Water was on short supply from the radiation. The other impact I always thought about is what if another nation dropped an atomic bomb on the United States. As bad as September 11 was, I'm sure that the atomic bomb being dropped in New York and the Pentagon would have had a far more devastating impact. After World War II ended, Japan openly test atomic weapons off the coast of some of the Pacific islands. The United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States all competed in an arms race to see who could build the biggest weapons. The atomic bomb began a whole new kind of warfare, and began widespread fear of a devastating attack on a country's civilians. -Patrick Kramer</div>Matt325https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 10 Questions/Comments2011-03-24T04:10:42Z<p>Matt325: /* Video of nuclear blasts */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Pursell article ==<br />
<br />
On page 213, it was quite interesting that a main factor in pursuing nuclear energy was not necessarily to improve the quality of life in America. It is proposed that atomic energy was pursued to negate the Soviet Union’s possible use of it to convert developing nations to its side. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
Smith’s essay discusses the advertising of atomic energy. He claims, “Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, and as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (216-17). The AEC and other governmental agencies had to reassure the public that the new technology could serve another purpose besides destroying a city. Smith mentions that a AEC deputy director claimed, “‘in its civilian uses the energy of the atom should be described as ‘nuclear energy’ rather than ‘atomic energy’” (Pursell 217). “Atomic energy” is too closely associated with the mushroom cloud image and the fatalities of the Japanese. “Nuclear energy” sounds more like an alternative energy source rather than material used in a bomb. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Video of nuclear blasts ==<br />
<br />
The video that was posted on the readings page was incredibly emotional and thought provoking. I had no idea that there were that many tests of nuclear devices, especially by the United States. It seems that once you knew that it worked, i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would not need to keep testing. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly harrowing to see how many nuclear explosions there have been. I agree with Kyle- I had no idea that the United States had done so many explosions. It seems, when comparing the numbers of explosions in the United States to explosions in Russia, our nearest competitor (1032 to 715) and seemingly biggest fear was nowhere even close to the number of explosions. I had had the impression that the Cold War and arms race was a lot closer than it actually was. I do, howevever, have a question, what kinds of explosions were these? Were these all tests, and if so, what are the magnitudes of those tests?<br />
<br />
I also found the video of showing the number for nuclear explosions conducted around the world interesting and a little disturbing. The fact that the United States conducted over a thousand tests in 53 years, more than most of the other countries combined, was a little disturbing for me. I agree with Kyle that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs worked that what reason is there to keep testing. Another thing that caught my attention, shown at the end of the clip, was the location in which other countries were testing. The U.S. seemed to have kept the majority of their testing in the same location and within our own boarders. Seeing some countries testing in Scandinavia, Australia, and parts of Africa made me wonder why there? In some years seeing the amount of lights blink and the number rising gave the feeling of “Holy S^*#.”<br />
--Mike Roche<br />
<br />
I can't add much more then what has already been said, but for the record, I will say wow! I had no idea that we had tested that many times in those 53 years. I too am curious to know what type of testing some of them were, and what impact, if any, have the more recent tests had. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
I think one of the major factors contributing to the large amounts of nuclear tests by both the United States and Russia was the constant fear of falling behind one another. Both governments were terrified of the other discovering a new type of atomic weapon, or some other technology, that could win the war for them. The US was aware of Russia's nuclear tests, and though Russia was slightly behind, there was a lot of fear in the American government of being surpassed technologically, allowing the Russians to launch a pre-emtive strike. With that in mind, the number of atomic tests makes sense, as both nations could figure out new ways of perfecting the bomb, while "flexing their guns" at the one another. - Will D<br />
<br />
I did not realize that so many tests had been done, especially after seeing the effects on Japan. I knew testing had been done prior to bombing Japan, and that some testing had been done during the Cold War, but not to that extent. I also did not realize that the United States did so much more testing than any other country. I thought that the competition went back and forth much more than this video showed. I am very curious to know if there were any affects of these tests, and if so what kind. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I found the video to be rather terrifying, as the numbers went up so did my disbelief. After learning about, as well as seeing the affects of the atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I find it hard to understand why there would be continued testing. I can recognize the fear and paranoia that the U.S and Soviet Union experienced during the Cold war, and yes I realize that it is almost always better to be the side with the bigger stick, but for the U.S to conduct testing of 1000+ bombs simply doesn’t feel right. And of course, I have to wonder what effects all the testing has had on the environment. What did all these tests accomplish? --Kathleen Mead<br />
<br />
I too am shocked by the number of tests performed not only by the United States but also by other countries. However, we should recall the “Atomic Age” and how nuclear energy was publicized as a positive alternative to other energy sources and its effects were downplayed. The Pursell reading continuously mentioned how the agencies tried to spin the horrible effects of radiation. In Michael Smith’s article, he mentions the AEC Commissioner, Theos J. Thompson’s idea, “To oppose nuclear technology because low-level radiation might be detrimental struck Thompson as woefully enervated: ‘It is as though we decided not to get out bed anymore because we might slip on the way to the bathroom’” (Pursell 229). I think Thompson took that one a little too far. Radiation poisoning is SLIGHTLY more dangerous than slipping on the way to the bathroom. And I say this with the authority of being a clumsy person.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I thought this was very interesting. Like Meagan, I didn't know quite how many tests were really being done, but you can especially see the difference during the Cold War period, especially in 1957-1958. We can also clearly see that the United States was the leader in all of these tests, with a close follow by the Soviet Union. We can also see where these tests were done with shows that a lot were done in the Pacific, and a lot were done in the Soviet Union and along the western United States. I think we can take into account the reasoning behind the U.S. nuclear tests as being not only for military use, but for the potential of commercial nuclear power as well. I do wonder though if doing these tests, if there were any considerations in radiation, especially after the results from Japan at the end of World War II. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike, it was little disturbing to know how many of these bombs were actually used since then. While I was watching this, I asked my girl friend how many nuclear bombs she thought have been used since their beginning in 1945. Her reply was "4". Needless to say she was off by a few...- Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
== General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb ==<br />
<br />
In this modern day, I believe that many students have been desensitized to the entire process of nuclear power and weapons. It is shown as a very powerful thing in modern media, but it is also shown as a very controlled thing. These conceptions are not too different from what the U.S. was trying to achieve in the 50’s and 60’s, which leads me to believe that in the long run, they were successful.<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I agree with Kyle, I think that people today don't fully know or understand the true impact that nuclear weapons can really have on society. And although this may be true, you still see a fear when foreign countries are attempting to create their own nuclear weapons. I think that today though, more people are experiencing the effects nuclear power can have on society ie. the recent Japanese events. But people also are experiencing and using nuclear power for energy, not only for weapons. The atomic bomb has created much power for the United States and any country with nuclear weapons though. And the need for new global policies had to be created to tend to these new powers. -Claire Brooks</div>Matt325https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_9_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 9 Questions/Comments2011-03-17T04:10:15Z<p>Matt325: /* Geoffrey Bennett, “Colour Comes to All,” The Story of Popular Photography */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Nye ==<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that when Nye discusses the reason for the streetcar's demise, he states that a major reason is the consolidation of the companies. The consolidation raises rates, because there is no competition. This is also the reason for the lessening amounts of investment. In these suburbs and cities, they are the only provider. Therefore, in order to increase revenues, they will lower the cost of production/investment. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
When discussing the social outcomes of the streetcars, Nye states "its tracks pushed through the existing social fabric, pulling apart the urban structure..." The automobile will do this as well and to a much greater degree. It will be possible for suburbs to be farther and farther away pushing the classes farther apart. Eventually, the taxes are so low and the revenues are so low for the streetcars that public transportation becomes unbearable. The automobile helped push the streetcar out of the cities, while pulling apart the classes of people. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
"Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams." Apparently, there must be a lot of trolley cars in the area that we are unaware of. Wasn't there talk in recent years of Washington DC bringing back a form of a Trolly/street Car system? - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
Nye discusses how the automobile differed from public transportation like the subway, in terms of separating the different social classes. Nye goes into further detail, discussing how by the 1920’s, the type of transportation you chose revealed a lot about your social standing and your position in society. Have things really changed today? The type of car one drives still serves as a strong symbol of social status, and public transportation isn’t exactly considered a luxury. However, it isn’t as if all poor people only use public transportation and all rich people only drive expensive luxury cars. I had never actually experienced any real form of public transportation (besides school buses and airplanes) until I visited New York City when I was sixteen years old; it was an eye-opening experience. I learned that the subway is actually incredibly diverse. I saw men and women in expensive business suits, people whom looked like they were blue-collar workers, and people whom looked homeless. However, I still feel that to this day, the way in which one travels to their job or anywhere else in their life is very indicative of their social status. For instance, if I were raised in a very wealthy family in Washington, D.C., would I really feel the need to ride the bus around the city in order to get to the places that I needed to go? Or would I simply drive the convertible BMU that my parents got me for my sixteenth birthday? Similar to clothes and the type of home one owns, so many people are concerned with obtaining the most socially impressive automobile in order to maintain a respectable place in society. It is this fact that makes me believe that all in all, things have not really changed much since the 1920’s, in terms of the correlation between social status and the type of automobile one drives. The streetcar’s significance in the early twentieth century extended far beyond being just an innovation in the efficiency of transportation; it served as an entirely new way to establish one’s place in society. ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
I thought that this reading was quite interesting in that there were numerous reasons as to why the streetcar failed, especially with the impact that the automobile had on it. One quote that struck me was, "Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams" (p 136). Many of the overcrowding streets were constantly being blamed on the streetcars, but even after the cars changed moved away from rail and had rubber wheels? Why did the trolley car continue to fail after improvements were made upon it? -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
== Pursell ==<br />
<br />
The 26 questions to decide whether the engineering profession is right seem to be applicable questions to ask even today. By looking at these questions and studying them, one can determine the objectives, goals, and processes used by engineers in the early 20th century. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point I found in the Waddell’s section on Vocational Guidance was how it was essential to the safety and prosperity of the community that engineers be naturally qualified and of good character. Yes, professionals need to be considered carefully, and certainly engineers have a direct effect on the community, but does the safety prosperity of the community truly rely on the natural qualifications and moral character of its workers? I think, in fact, it partially does, because we saw an example of this with the building of the Brooklyn Bridge. There was corruption from Boss Tweed, the faulty cables, and substandard building with not digging completely down to bedrock. However, the Brooklyn Bridge still safely stands and proved a prosperous investment for Manhattan and Brooklyn. I thought, though the list of questions was particularly interesting as a way of determining abilities and potential in hopeful engineers. Was this applied to other professions? <br />
--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Sinclair claims, “The proofs of that maturation . . . were the readiness of engineers to assume a leading role in the solution of the world’s economic and social problems” (148). This statement represents the aspect of technology that it should fulfill a need of society. For example, Thomas Edison created an electrical system through the incandescent lamp. Sinclair is arguing that engineers create objects that resolve problems in society. Geoffrey Bennet states, “Kodak had correctly judged that the new generation wanted smaller, easy-to-load and easy-to-use camera . . . . The system was the perfect technical and practical answer to the need, truly in the spirit of George Eastman’s famous slogan, ‘You press the button, we do the rest’” (141). Eastman made it easy for the common person to take a picture and have the company develop the image. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Waddell notes, “Many young men are graduating from engineering colleges who should have never entered them-and the sooner their mistakes are rectified the better. It would be much preferable if they had never commenced the study of engineering, and if the requirements of the colleges had been much more severe and the duration of their instruction longer” (156). Engineering colleges today are much more competitive and selective than in earlier decades. However, is Waddell being fair that graduates of engineering colleges never should have applied in the first place? Were the lower standards really producing incompetent engineers? –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
This section was very interesting. Waddell comments that he thinks there should be better qualified engineers and that the education leading up to becoming a successful engineer needs to be more rigorous. I think that with an increasing population and thus increasing competition for the job that it has become more competitive, just not necessarily because the field required better applicants. The questions that were suggested also seemed extremely universal and relevant. Those questions are good, it seems, regardless of the time and can even be twisted to become relevant for other fields. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I too like Kyle found the twenty six questions for engineering applicants to be interesting. But were these questions the right questions to be asking? Just because someone could answer a few questions the wrong way, doesn't mean that they aren't capable of completing a job. I also found the conditions for why a middle-aged man should stay in the engineering industry to be interesting, as they are what I believe most people today consider before retiring or resigning from work. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
== Geoffrey Bennett, “Colour Comes to All,” The Story of Popular Photography ==<br />
Bennett’s article contains two photographs that capture towns and their events. One is during the day and shows the daily activities of a town. Another is at night and shows all of the houses lit up and all of the boats tied down. They are more modern photographs and have vivid colors. On page 146 there are photographs from the 1950’s that are still in color and are a great improvement in color film. The film/digital camera industry has made great technological improvements, but what comes after digital cameras? –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The sheer quantity of models developed is staggering. Just as impressive, though, is that for many of those new and more expensive models, vital aspects of photography--such as the quality and clarity of the resulting photo--would not be improved, and would oftentimes decrease in quality in successive products. The idea that even moderate success could be claimed by a product that produced poorer images than its predecessors is surprising, but there were instances in which just that happened. The drive to make the camera smaller, more portable, and more attractive actually decreased its ability to perform its function. --NIcole S<br />
<br />
In this excerpt Bennet writes about the history of coloured photography from the time that artists were painting in the colour on the photos as early as the 1800's. Colour has always been a necessary part of photography. We see too the drive to continually improve the camera to make it a motre sellable product. Sometimes we see though that perhaps this had a negative effect on the actual quality of the photo. We continue to attemp to achieve even greater heights in technological advancement, but like Samantha stated what will really come after digital? or have we reached a peak? Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
In the readings of Bennett, I really enjoyed reading about the "tri-pack system" in which he uses to describe George Eastman's Flexible or roll film. The roll film was revolutionary for the development of the camera. He states on page 133, "though principles were understood, practical problems had prevented this dream from being realized". This dream was first realized on a coated paper, but later on moved to a transparent celluloid film where it blossomed. Thus the camera and it's technological advancements would have been hindered without the development of film and plastic. Perhaps plastic deserves more credit for the camera? -Matthew Slagle</div>Matt325https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_9_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 9 Questions/Comments2011-03-17T03:59:08Z<p>Matt325: /* Geoffrey Bennett, “Colour Comes to All,” The Story of Popular Photography */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Nye ==<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that when Nye discusses the reason for the streetcar's demise, he states that a major reason is the consolidation of the companies. The consolidation raises rates, because there is no competition. This is also the reason for the lessening amounts of investment. In these suburbs and cities, they are the only provider. Therefore, in order to increase revenues, they will lower the cost of production/investment. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
When discussing the social outcomes of the streetcars, Nye states "its tracks pushed through the existing social fabric, pulling apart the urban structure..." The automobile will do this as well and to a much greater degree. It will be possible for suburbs to be farther and farther away pushing the classes farther apart. Eventually, the taxes are so low and the revenues are so low for the streetcars that public transportation becomes unbearable. The automobile helped push the streetcar out of the cities, while pulling apart the classes of people. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
"Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams." Apparently, there must be a lot of trolley cars in the area that we are unaware of. Wasn't there talk in recent years of Washington DC bringing back a form of a Trolly/street Car system? - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
Nye discusses how the automobile differed from public transportation like the subway, in terms of separating the different social classes. Nye goes into further detail, discussing how by the 1920’s, the type of transportation you chose revealed a lot about your social standing and your position in society. Have things really changed today? The type of car one drives still serves as a strong symbol of social status, and public transportation isn’t exactly considered a luxury. However, it isn’t as if all poor people only use public transportation and all rich people only drive expensive luxury cars. I had never actually experienced any real form of public transportation (besides school buses and airplanes) until I visited New York City when I was sixteen years old; it was an eye-opening experience. I learned that the subway is actually incredibly diverse. I saw men and women in expensive business suits, people whom looked like they were blue-collar workers, and people whom looked homeless. However, I still feel that to this day, the way in which one travels to their job or anywhere else in their life is very indicative of their social status. For instance, if I were raised in a very wealthy family in Washington, D.C., would I really feel the need to ride the bus around the city in order to get to the places that I needed to go? Or would I simply drive the convertible BMU that my parents got me for my sixteenth birthday? Similar to clothes and the type of home one owns, so many people are concerned with obtaining the most socially impressive automobile in order to maintain a respectable place in society. It is this fact that makes me believe that all in all, things have not really changed much since the 1920’s, in terms of the correlation between social status and the type of automobile one drives. The streetcar’s significance in the early twentieth century extended far beyond being just an innovation in the efficiency of transportation; it served as an entirely new way to establish one’s place in society. ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
I thought that this reading was quite interesting in that there were numerous reasons as to why the streetcar failed, especially with the impact that the automobile had on it. One quote that struck me was, "Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams" (p 136). Many of the overcrowding streets were constantly being blamed on the streetcars, but even after the cars changed moved away from rail and had rubber wheels? Why did the trolley car continue to fail after improvements were made upon it? -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
== Pursell ==<br />
<br />
The 26 questions to decide whether the engineering profession is right seem to be applicable questions to ask even today. By looking at these questions and studying them, one can determine the objectives, goals, and processes used by engineers in the early 20th century. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point I found in the Waddell’s section on Vocational Guidance was how it was essential to the safety and prosperity of the community that engineers be naturally qualified and of good character. Yes, professionals need to be considered carefully, and certainly engineers have a direct effect on the community, but does the safety prosperity of the community truly rely on the natural qualifications and moral character of its workers? I think, in fact, it partially does, because we saw an example of this with the building of the Brooklyn Bridge. There was corruption from Boss Tweed, the faulty cables, and substandard building with not digging completely down to bedrock. However, the Brooklyn Bridge still safely stands and proved a prosperous investment for Manhattan and Brooklyn. I thought, though the list of questions was particularly interesting as a way of determining abilities and potential in hopeful engineers. Was this applied to other professions? <br />
--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Sinclair claims, “The proofs of that maturation . . . were the readiness of engineers to assume a leading role in the solution of the world’s economic and social problems” (148). This statement represents the aspect of technology that it should fulfill a need of society. For example, Thomas Edison created an electrical system through the incandescent lamp. Sinclair is arguing that engineers create objects that resolve problems in society. Geoffrey Bennet states, “Kodak had correctly judged that the new generation wanted smaller, easy-to-load and easy-to-use camera . . . . The system was the perfect technical and practical answer to the need, truly in the spirit of George Eastman’s famous slogan, ‘You press the button, we do the rest’” (141). Eastman made it easy for the common person to take a picture and have the company develop the image. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Waddell notes, “Many young men are graduating from engineering colleges who should have never entered them-and the sooner their mistakes are rectified the better. It would be much preferable if they had never commenced the study of engineering, and if the requirements of the colleges had been much more severe and the duration of their instruction longer” (156). Engineering colleges today are much more competitive and selective than in earlier decades. However, is Waddell being fair that graduates of engineering colleges never should have applied in the first place? Were the lower standards really producing incompetent engineers? –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
This section was very interesting. Waddell comments that he thinks there should be better qualified engineers and that the education leading up to becoming a successful engineer needs to be more rigorous. I think that with an increasing population and thus increasing competition for the job that it has become more competitive, just not necessarily because the field required better applicants. The questions that were suggested also seemed extremely universal and relevant. Those questions are good, it seems, regardless of the time and can even be twisted to become relevant for other fields. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I too like Kyle found the twenty six questions for engineering applicants to be interesting. But were these questions the right questions to be asking? Just because someone could answer a few questions the wrong way, doesn't mean that they aren't capable of completing a job. I also found the conditions for why a middle-aged man should stay in the engineering industry to be interesting, as they are what I believe most people today consider before retiring or resigning from work. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
== Geoffrey Bennett, “Colour Comes to All,” The Story of Popular Photography ==<br />
Bennett’s article contains two photographs that capture towns and their events. One is during the day and shows the daily activities of a town. Another is at night and shows all of the houses lit up and all of the boats tied down. They are more modern photographs and have vivid colors. On page 146 there are photographs from the 1950’s that are still in color and are a great improvement in color film. The film/digital camera industry has made great technological improvements, but what comes after digital cameras? –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The sheer quantity of models developed is staggering. Just as impressive, though, is that for many of those new and more expensive models, vital aspects of photography--such as the quality and clarity of the resulting photo--would not be improved, and would oftentimes decrease in quality in successive products. The idea that even moderate success could be claimed by a product that produced poorer images than its predecessors is surprising, but there were instances in which just that happened. The drive to make the camera smaller, more portable, and more attractive actually decreased its ability to perform its function. --NIcole S<br />
<br />
In this excerpt Bennet writes about the history of coloured photography from the time that artists were painting in the colour on the photos as early as the 1800's. Colour has always been a necessary part of photography. We see too the drive to continually improve the camera to make it a motre sellable product. Sometimes we see though that perhaps this had a negative effect on the actual quality of the photo. We continue to attemp to achieve even greater heights in technological advancement, but like Samantha stated what will really come after digital? or have we reached a peak? Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
In the readings of Bennett, I really enjoyed reading about the "tri-pack system" in which he uses to describe George Eastman's Flexible or roll film. The roll film was revolutionary for the development of the camera. He states on page 133, "though principles were understood, practical problems had prevented this dream from being realized". This dream was first realized on a coated paper, but later on moved to a transparent celluloid film where it blossomed. Thus the camera and it's technological advancements would have been hindered without the development of film and plastic. -Matthew Slagle</div>Matt325https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 6 Questions/Comments2011-02-17T06:03:47Z<p>Matt325: /* Electricity and the City -- Great White Way */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The reading from last week discussing how nations and people view levels of civilization through a lens of technology is supported or enhanced by Nye’s discussion of the World’s Fair. In a walled off section, there was an electricity display with lights. From this point onward, all civilization would be judged based upon whether or not it was lit up at night by Edison’s innovations. In other parts of the fair, they had displays of less civilized people, such as Natives, Mexicans, and Blacks in the Old South. The bar of civilization has been raised.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that in the introductory readings in the first chapter, we read about the ways in which power came to symbolize much more than power, without going too much into what that meant for society. Part V of Chapter 5, with its focus on the social construction of the American power system, focused on non-commodified aspects of electricity, in its uses in wider society. I also saw an interesting parallel, related to what Kyle said above about "civilized people," between the bar for civilization among peoples and the bar for civilization among First-World individuals themselves, with farmers being lumped in with "less civilized people," deprived of electricity and without the capacity to handle it--supposedly.- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
== Electricity and the City -- Great White Way ==<br />
<br />
<br />
An important element of the introduction of electricity that I think we need to talk about is the greatly increased safety of them. Because gas lights were not as bright and tended to flicker, crime was rampant in the streets, even if those streets were lit. With the introduction of the electrically lit streets, the streets were more consistently and evenly lit, so even if the streets were not necessarily safer, at least the perceived safety has increased. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Going off of Sara's point, I think that electricity did increase perceived safety. I don't think it actually helped with crime rates. If someone is going to commit a crime they're going to find a way to do it whether its dark or not. However, the fact that people could see a little better gave them some confidence and safety, even if it wasn't actually safer. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
I also found it fascinating that electricity and lights played such an important role in the entertainment aspect of society. Of course today most of us decorate in some fashion with holiday lights, but I did not realize that this was going on so early. The idea of the basis of fairs being the best lighted exhibition baffles me. We still have these fairs today, and they are still fairly common, but it's hard to believe that the focus was once electricity. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
In regards to Meagan's comment about the role electricity played in society, I too found it a bit fascinating that once electricity and lights came into play, it seemed that life and everything else just took off. There was no stopping it and once it was fully embraced, the world at the time was never going to be the same. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
To add to Sara's point I would tend to agree that the general safety of electricity has increased in regard to city lighting. There are many positives when thinking about what good lighting can do in a heavily populated city. This could lead to less car accidents and possible crime. Back home in New Jersey, I grew up in a city where there was a decent amount of crime. The lighting at night definitely helps in regard to crime. Civilians could spot out a crook a lot easier for police. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
To think that this was the beginning of Broadway is really important. The "white way" is seen in pictures from the time period, but also you can tell where the most people would be. The movie industry was also benefiting from electricity, as well as artists and many other people and businesses. Electricity cultivated the social aspect of everyday life. When they cut the lights off for a couple of days people requested they be put back on, maybe out of fear that their respective social lives would suffer. Now people who live near large lighted signs use shades, especially at night, to combat the light. I wonder if the social aspect of our lives changed when they “turned the lights on” or would it have happened naturally? -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
I was very interested to read about how private investment, along with social, political and economic interests played such a heavy role in determining the development of the electrical system. Had electricity been more of a state-sponsored endeavor, it may be that it wouldn't have become a conspicuous commodity in its earliest stages (being used in the houses of the rich and for display) and may have made it into the average household sooner like it did in Europe. This did, however, allow it to be centralized and standardized more quickly, which helped it grow and spread more variedly. - Scott Birney<br />
<br />
Nye’s mention of Times Square is important because it describes the effect that electricity had on American culture. He notes, “The tourist came to Times Square not only to see the brilliant lighting, but to witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness” (Nye 69). The lighting was such a marvelous sight that tourists came to that part of Manhattan just to see the lights; electricity was such a phenomenon to the American people. He also mentions the later tradition of New Years Eve at Times Square. Nye comments, “Times Square thus became a ceremonial space filled by a vast crowd from every conceivable class and profession, reduced to momentary equality as they marked the passing of time” (71, 73). The fact that the invention of a lighting system became a public spectacle proves the innovation of electricity and its influence on society. <br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
To add to Meagan's point on electricity in the world's fairs, I found this portion of the reading interesting. Nye states: "In a time when the nation was in the throes of rapid industrialization and urbanization, the word's fair was a shapely actualization of order whose displays could "take people out of their ordinary routines and thus remove them temporarily from their usual positions in the social structure"(34). I feel this is very similar to christmas lights, when we see the lights, it takes us to a winter wonderland and we escape if just for a moment. -Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
== Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer ==<br />
<br />
Westinghouse had an electric car in 1901? This is quite interesting. According to a little online research, there were many other automobile companies testing electric automobiles, almost one hundred. It is interesting how the best technology does not always win or rather, what we conceive as the best technology. Had electricity and the storage of electricity been more feasible at the time, electric automobiles may have won the technological selection process and modern times would be quite different.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
There were issues with the trolleys operating on Sundays, or the Sabbath. Even the courts could tell that the people were changing their habits and customs. Can you imagine if we were not allowed to drive on Sundays now? It is also amazing that these families were spending up to 20% of their income on these streetcars. The streetcars were supposed to assist people, but they were becoming a problem. Strikes and safety issues were 2 of the main problems with the streetcars. People were being hit and dragged by the trolleys and overall safety was becoming an issue. There were many strikes at many of the streetcar companies and scabs were getting hurt, either by stoning or being assaulted, by the striking worker. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines==<br />
<br />
This reading also brings up the interesting discussion of the affect of electricity in rural america. As it would be expected, it took much longer for the electric lines and technologies to reach rural america. I believe it has less to do with an unwilling culture and more to do with the lack of private corporations that saw the spread out Midwest and South as feasible markets. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point that Nye brought up in his analysis of rural electrification is the question of what will this do to the farmer. Now that many of the jobs that used to take him and his hired hands hours or days to do can be shortened to a few minutes work, will farming as a profession become obsolete? These fears were certainly justified in those times, but I think the point that softens the blow of this is that farmers’ productivity was merely increased, and greatly. The time it took to do one job, and the number of hands required to do so decreased. The introduction of electricity to the farm may have made the farmers’ job a little easier, and we have certainly seen over the years that a small unit of farmers can have an even higher productivity. However, I think it might be worthwhile to examine the numbers of how many people were farmers at that time compared to what it was 20 or 30 years after rural electrification, or even today. Perhaps those jobs have been lost, but there was a shift in how the country, and world, gets its food, so the cultural and economic dynamic had to change.--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Nye mentions how technology improved the work of farmers and how productivity increased. Technology also had an effect on the family life of the farmer. Nye claims, “A TVA study showed that electric lights added two to four hours a day to a family’s potential working time, giving them more flexibility in planning the day’s activities . . . . Refrigerators retarded food spoilage and improved the family diet” (323-24). It is important that eventually electricity was not restricted to the cities because its use in rural areas increased productivity on farms. However it also was beneficial in factories. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class, the use of electricity in factories made it possible for machines to run longer and the factories did not have to be built near rivers.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found the most interesting part of this reading to be the comparison between American and European electricity principles. The Europeans were all for getting electricity to every home, especially to rural homes, while America was set on private initiatives. Nye states, "American government only pointed to the problem, and expected farmers to organize and secure electrical service for themselves," (p 288). Why did the government leave it to the farmers to deal with this alone? Why was electricity so easily accessible in urban areas? Why were rural areas readily able to accept new technologies, but when it came to electricity it was not as important? And once again we look back to man vs. nature when Nye states, "From the viewpoint of conservative critics, rural electrification meant more than sanitation, comfort, and higher production; it threatened the balance between man and nature," (p. 290). Man already new how to deal with nature agriculturally, they had been doing it now for centuries. But when you alter how man interacts with nature, you may have created another problem all together.--Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
== Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? ==<br />
<br />
In reading the section between pages 182-184, electricity was different things to different people. You have the middle class people that saw it as a new way of life and something special. Reading about the construction of the dams and how they didn't take into consideration flood control or irrigation, it seemed that some of the bigger corporations were taking advantage of this new found technology and were only in it to make a quick profit, instead of looking at the big picture. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
In reading Nye pages 182-184, the electric system was an instant hit with the general public, contrary to what we can say about the early clocks in American society. As the electric system was perfected, the private utilities could produce power more cheaply and wider than public distributers, although connections with Westinghouse, General Electric, and the National Electric Light Association didn’t hurt either. What I found most interesting was the general impression of the electric system which “was one of utopian expectation, viewing electricity not as a commodity but as an enlivening ‘juice’ that could rejuvenate the nervous system and free mankind from toil,” (pg 182). <br />
>>> Mike Roche<br />
<br />
"Corporations were acting with foresight, singleness of purpose and vigor to control the water power of the country". So is Roosevelt saying that in regards to dams being built, it would have been possible to manage without dams? After reading more and more of the passage the book goes on to say "water resources often were developed without regards for needs other than power generation. So there was not even a thought? Or was it just to "keep up with the times". This was an interesting thought that I had after reading the rest of the passage. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting how when electricity was first being introduced to the public it wasn’t seen merely as a great innovation that would make life easier, but was actually expected to catapult society into a utopia. However, I then examined the differences in life before and after electricity; what would it be like to live in a world without lights powered by electricity, and then to one day have someone inform you that you would be able to light your home day and night? That your city would never get dark and that you could now perform an array of household tasks more much more efficiently and quickly? Are there any parallels to the present day in terms of our high hopes for technology? Doesn’t it seem like every new Apple product markets itself as the most wondrous creation the world has ever seen? It seems as if we as a species are never content with the technological innovations we already have. We are constantly looking forward, hoping that the next innovation will make us happier, and more efficient people, instead of utilizing the tools that are already at our disposal. From the reading, it seems as if people were emphatic about electricity for a short while, then quickly accepted it to be a common part of their everyday lives. There aren't very many people living in the United States these days who rant and rave upon entering a room and turning on a light bulb. On page 186, Nye describes how the public eventually saw electricity as an everyday right, and not something to be thankful for. Most of us wouldn’t even be able to make it through the day without our cell phones, Internet, and iPods. Do we ever stop and think about the electricity powering our homes and appliances? Isn’t it about time we stop praying to get a new iPad or Droid and instead be thankful for the innovations we already have at our disposal? If we don’t, we will always be looking for the “next big thing” instead of appreciating what we already have. Then again, some might argue that the need for constant progress and improvement is simply the nature of technology and innovation. Will there ever be a day when common light bulbs are rendered completely obsolete? Is it inevitable? Are the only truly great inventions and innovations the ones that stand for hundreds of years? ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting things that I found from this reading was the quote, "As could be heard in everyday metaphors describing the body as an electrical machine that could be overloaded, burned out, recharged, and shorted out." (p. 184) It reminded me of two things, one being the McEvoy reading about the ecological approach to industry and how the worker's body is the biological core or the industrial ecosystem. It also reminded me of the constant man vs. nature issue that we have been seeing all throughout this semester with the new technologies that are produced. Nye's, and the general public's metaphors really can show the importance of the growing technologies in America through this time. But going back to the main question of what is electricity, is it a commodity? This brings up Nye's statement, "One consequence of defining it as a commodity was that most farmers were excluded from the electrified world." (p. 184). The majority of Americans at this time, I believe I read were farmers, thus the majority of American were without electricity, and all because the electricity at the time was privately owned. --Claire Brooks</div>Matt325 Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38