Within repressive regimes that do not rule at the behest of the general population, any opposition to the policies and beliefs as espoused by their leaders is necessarily seen as a threat to power. Resistance in such cases is treated with unquestioning brutality, and terror is, by necessity, the tool that is used to retain control.
In spite of the brutal application of collective punishment exacted by the Third Reich (National Socialism) during the brief but disastrous reign of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, there were still instances of overt resistance by those courageous enough to stand up to the extreme brutality and repression. The story of the White Rose exemplifies astounding courage, moral integrity and inherent optimism about human nature and humanity.
Before Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the German economy was in terrible condition due, in part, to the draconian measures imposed as a result of the Treaty of Versailles from defeat of Germany in World War I. For that reason, Communism posed a possible threat to the status quo, for it offered an appealing alternative economic model that held the promise of welcomed change. It was that threat that contributed significantly to Hitler’s rise to power. Fascism and Communism lie at opposite poles of the political spectrum. Hitler’s appeal was in part due to his declarations of the greatness and the superiority of the German people, and his promise to bring security and economic prosperity to all. So strong was the anti-Bolshevist sentiment that twenty million Soviet citizens died as a result of Hitler’s war.
At the university in Munich, Germany between 1942 and 1943, students, who were members of an organization they referred to as the White Rose, had thrown hundreds of leaflets from the balcony into the school’s vast entrance hall. During this time period, they also did direct mailings of these documents to the residences of some of Germany’s major cities. They were subsequently arrested. They were arrested for taking part in what we would regard as an ordinary expression of a democratic right and responsibility i.e. the airing of grievances. The main players in this action were Hans Fritz Scholl (25), Sophia Magdalena Scholl (22) and Christopher Hermann Probst (24). Others who were subsequently arrested were: Willi Graf, Professor Kurt Huber and Alexander Schmorell. Ultimately, they were all executed.
The members of the White Rose were not naive; they understood the likely consequences of their actions: concentration camp or death. They were idealistic young university students who saw the abysmal future that lie ahead of them if the policies of the Third Reich continued to prevail; this prospect so horrified them that they felt compelled to act.
The White Rose was the brainchild of Hans Scholl. Hans and his sister Sophie grew up in a traditional family and led happy young lives. The ineluctable movement of events, however, would soon transform their surroundings. Hans was fifteen and his sister was twelve years old when Hitler had taken power. It was a time when Hitler’s mesmerizing oratory about the greatness of the German people and the noble and great future that was ahead under his guiding principles was everywhere. This had a remarkable impact on young and receptive minds. Hans and Sophie joined the Hitler Youth. At that time, they did not understand their father’s serious reservations concerning National Socialism when he had said that the, “First concern of any German should not be military victory over Bolshevism, but the defeat of National Socialism.”
According to his daughter, Hans feeling about the rightness of Germany’s “awakening,” went through a remarkable transformation. “…At this time he was honored with a very special assignment. He was chosen to be the flag bearer when his troop attended the Party Rally in Nuremberg. His joy was great. But when he returned, we could not believe our eyes. He looked tired and showed signs of a great disappointment. We did not expect any explanation from him, but gradually we found out that the image and model of the Hitler Youth which had been impressed on him there was totally different from his own ideal. The official view demanded discipline and conformity down to the last detail, including personal life, while he would have wanted every boy to follow his own bent and give free play to his talents. The individual should enrich the life of the group with his own contribution of imagination and ideas. In Nuremberg, however, everything was directed according to a set pattern. Rebellion was stirring in Hans’ mind.”
Hans and his close friends took consolation in an organization of young people called the Jungenschaft that existed in various German cities. Within this group they could exercise their idealistic and romantic notions. Ultimately, these groups became outlawed by the State, for they did not conform to Party principles. The disturbing events that surrounded him provoked Hans into an inquiry into philosophical principles. He read Plato, Pascal, Socrates and other philosophers in an attempt to find meaning amid the chaos that surrounded him.
These sobering revelations planted the beginnings of doubt and mistrust in Hans’ mind. His feelings rapidly spread to his siblings. In a state of moral confusion the Scholl children went to their father for some kind of resolution. When he was asked, “Father, what is a concentration camp, he answered, “That is war. War in the midst of peace and within our own people. War against human happiness and the freedom of its children. It is a frightful crime.”
Eventually the time had come to move on to higher education. Hans had plans to go into medicine; this took him to the university in Munich. It was while he was in school that the War broke out. He was inducted into a company of Medics, and soon took part in the French campaign. There he lived the life of a half-soldier and half-student. In this position he witnessed the strangle hold that Nazi doctrine exerted on his countrymen. He found this terribly disquieting.
Hans and his fellow colleagues had discovered a philosophy professor by the name of Kurt Huber who had a profound impact on them. According to Huber, the Nazi regime was, “not only trampling on the divine order, but also attempting to annihilate God himself.” Professor Huber eventually was part of Hans’ group and was eventually executed by the State.
Sophie soon joined him at the University. Her parents were growing uneasy about not only the political climate but the safety of their children. Their fears were not unjustified, for within six weeks of Sophie’s arrival in Munich, the first leaflets were distributed.
The following is an excerpt from this first leaflet, “…by means of gradual, treacherous, systemic abuse, the system has put every man into a spiritual prison. Only now, finding himself lying in fetters, has he become aware of his fate…” Three additional leaflets were distributed before they were all discovered, arrested and eventually tried.
The following is a brief excerpt from the documents surrounding indictments of the members of the White Rose, “In the summer of 1942 the so-called Leaflets of the White Rose were distributed through the mails. These seditious pamphlets contained attacks on National Socialism and on its cultural-political policies in particular; further, they contain statements concerning the alleged murder of the Jews and alleged forced deportation of the Poles. In addition, the leaflets contained the demand to ‘obstruct the continued functioning of the atheistic war machine’ by passive resistance, before it is too late and before the last of the German cities, like Cologne, become heaps of ruins and German youth had bled to death for the “hubris of a sub-human.”
Needless to say, all the members of the White Rose and their “accomplices” who were arrested were given the death sentence. It is a human tragedy of no small proportions, especially since the accusations that what was described so vividly in the leaflets were shown to be true. Similarly, the dire predictions regarding the fate of Germany, if the policies established by the National Socialists were to continue unobstructed, all came to ghastly fruition in a very short time. In spite of the tragic ending, these individuals demonstrated a selfless adherence to what they felt was right and a remarkably courageous non-violent opposition to what they knew to be terribly wrong. This is truly inspiring. It is the kind of behavior that adds credence to the nobility and dignity of the human species.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The Village Tales of Fekenham Swarberry
All good tales deserve re-telling and this time finishing. The doors to the Frog and Radiator are open, the logs are burning sending out a crimson glow and a warm pint of Widows Whiskers awaits you....
.
.
.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Do Enjoy, Please...
h/t to Mike Kotyk at “A View From The Hills”
Nothing else to say to this, it says it all.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Joseph Rotblat and the Bomb
Joseph Rotblat is known primarily for his contributions to the understanding of nuclear physics and his work on the development of the atomic bomb as part of what was referred to as the Manhattan Project. What is less well known about his life was his role as a proponent of peace during the dangerous cold war period following World War II. In fact, after spending only one year on the Manhattan project, he walked out and was suspected of being a Soviet spy on account of his opposition to the project.
Rotblat was a leading researcher on the biological effects of radiation and from the early 1950s to his death in 2005 he was a strong proponent of the abolition of nuclear weapons and the promotion of peace. He played an instrumental role in the establishment of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs and won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1995.
He was born in Warsaw, Poland on November 4, 1908 and had what he personally described as a happy childhood. At that time, Poland was divided and Warsaw was under the control of the Tsar of Russia. His father was a successful businessman and horse breeder. This prosperity was severely impacted by the First World War, for the borders were closed and horses were requisitioned by the government without compensation. So severe was the family’s decline that they endured extreme poverty.
Rotblat became an apprenticed electrician, and began his own business installing electrical lighting when the concept of electrification was in its infancy. He had a penchant for science and had an active imagination. In 1929, he joined the Free University of Poland. It was an unusual environment in that the staff held socialist views. The Free University had close ties with the Miroslaw Kerbbaum Radiological Laboratory of the Polish Scientific Society where Madam Curie served as the honorary director. Rotblat joined the Radiological Laboratory where he met the man who would be his mentor, Ludwig Wertenstein.
Wertenstein had spent two years in the Cambridge Laboratory where he worked with Ernest Rutherford, who discovered the atomic nucleus and James Chadwick, who discovered the subatomic particle, the neutron. In addition to his scientific credentials, Wertenstein was a linguist and a poet. From and ethical and moral standpoint, he was a humanist. It was the depth of Wertenstein’s moral character and his belief that a scientist always owns the responsibility for the products of his endeavors that strongly helped form Rotblat’s own thinking.
His early research involved the area of radiation detection, and built Geiger counters for this purpose. At the University of Warsaw he studied inelastic collisions and discovered the presence of Cobalt 60 (a radioactive isotope) in experiments in which he was bombarding gold with neutrons.
Neils Bohr, a leading nuclear physicist and a pioneer in the area of nuclear research, suggested that uranium 235 was the element responsible for atomic fission, and in 1939 the idea of a fission bomb was conceived. Rotblat joined Chadwick in Liverpool, and became recognized for his abilities along with his notable colleagues.
On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland and war was declared. Unfortunately, Rotblat’s wife, Tola, was trapped in Poland despite his attempts to rescue her. Tola inevitably died in the Majdanek concentration camp in Poland. Rotblat was not informed of her death until 1945; he was devastated by this news. On account of his close proximity and personal experience with the disastrous and destructive impact of Hitler’s’ regime, Rotbalt felt that Hitler needed to be deterred. In fact, he presented the feasibility of a uranium-fueled bomb to Chadwick. He wrestled with his conscience for although he felt that it was imperative to deter the Hitler’s onslaught, he felt strongly that it was not his job to work towards such a weapon of mass destruction.
Ultimately, Rotblat was invited to join the Manhattan Project in the US and he accepted. He moved to the Los Alamos Labs in New Mexico in 1943. He worked in the Oak Ridge Lab specializing in uranium isotope separation – a critical step in making the bomb. The Manhattan Project was under the direction of Robert Oppenheimer and had such notable scientists on board as Edward Teller, Richard Feynman and Enrico Fermi. Early on, Rotblat had ambivalent feeling about his involvement in the project.
He once attended a meeting in which General Groves, military head of the Manhattan Project, declared that the primary reason for developing the bomb was to defeat Stalin and subdue the Soviets. This explanation troubled Rotblat, for it seemed to have no connection to Nazi Germany. In addition, he concluded that the enormous resources required to successfully create a fission device was beyond Germany’s capability. He joined forces with Niels Bohr, who also wished to prevent an arms race with the Soviet Union, in trying to convince the allies to place the project under international supervision. This recommendation was ignored.
By the end of 1944, Rotblat resigned from the project. In 1985, Rotblat presented his point of view in the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists in an article entitled, Leaving the Bomb Project. In this piece, he claimed that the notion of using his knowledge to effect mass destruction was totally abhorrent to him. An excerpt of this paper is shown below.
________________________________________________________
“My concern about the purpose of our work gained substance from conversations with Niels Bohr. He used to come to my room at eight in the morning to listen to the IBBC news bulletin. Like myself, he could not stand the U.S. bulletins which urged us every few seconds to purchase a certain laxative! I owned a special radio on which I could receive the BBC World Service. Sometimes Bohr stayed on and talked to me about the social and political implications of the discovery of nuclear energy and of his worry about the dire consequences of a nuclear arms race between East and West which he foresaw. All this, and the growing evidence that the war in Europe would be over before the bomb project was completed, made my participation in it pointless. If it took the Americans such a long time, then my fear of the Germans being first was groundless. When it became evident, toward the end of 1944, that the Germans had abandoned their bomb project, the whole purpose of my being in Los Alamos ceased to be, and I asked for permission to leave and return to Britain. Why did other scientists not make the same decision? Obviously, one would not expect General Groves to wind up the project as soon as Germany was defeated, but there were many scientists for whom the German factor was the main motivation. Why did they not quit when this factor ceased to be? I was not allowed to discuss this issue with anybody after I declared my intention to leave Los Alamos, but earlier conversations, as well as much later ones, elicited several reasons.
The most frequent reason given was pure and simple scientific curiosity-the strong urge to find out whether the theoretical calculations and predictions would come true. These scientists felt that only after the test at Alamogordo should they enter into the debate about the use of the bomb. Others were prepared to put the matter off even longer, persuaded by the argument that many American lives would be saved if the bomb brought a rapid end to the war with Japan. Only when peace was restored would they take a hand in efforts to ensure that the bomb would not be used again. Still others, while agreeing that the project should have been stopped when the German factor ceased to operate, were not willing to take an individual stand because they feared it would adversely affect their future career.
The groups I have just described-scientists with a social conscience-were a minority in the scientific community. The majority was not bothered by moral scruples; they were quite content to leave it to others to decide how their work would be used. Much the same situation exists now in many countries in relation to work on military projects. But it is the morality issue at a time of war that perplexes and worries me most. Recently I came across a document released under the Freedom of Information Act. It is a letter, dated May 25, 1943, from Robert Oppenheimer to Enrico Fermi, on the military use of radioactive materials, specifically, the poisoning of food with radioactive strontium. The Smyth Report mentions such use as a possible German threat, but Oppenheimer apparently thought the idea worthy of consideration, and asked Fermi whether he could produce the strontium without letting too many people into the secret. He went on: “I think we should not attempt a plan unless we can poison food sufficient to kill a half a million men.”I am sure that in peacetime these same scientists would have viewed such a plan as barbaric; they would not have contemplated it even for a moment. Yet during the war it was considered quite seriously and, I presume, abandoned only because it was technically infeasible. After I told Chadwick that I wished to leave the project, he came back to me with very disturbing news. When he conveyed my wish to the intelligence chief at Los Alamos, he was shown a thick dossier on me with highly incriminating evidence. It boiled down to my being a spy: I had arranged with a contact in Santa Fe to return to England, and then to be flown to and parachuted onto the part of Poland held by the Soviets, in order to give the secrets of the atom bomb.
________________________________________________________
From 1945 – 1950 Rotblat was in charge of nuclear physics in Liverpool. He was so appalled by the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that he devoted his energy to the development of medical applications using nuclear radiation. In collaboration with Chadwick, the radioactive isotopes of iodine and phosphorus were found to have useful application. In addition, he collaborated with George Ansell in developing the use of radioactive iodine for the treatment of thyroid problems, a treatment protocol used to this day. He continued this kind of work – beneficial application of his knowledge of nuclear physics – at Bartholomew’s Medical College where he worked for twenty-six years starting in 1949.
On the news of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Rotblat was devastated, for he had hoped that the weapon would not work or that it would be used as a demonstration project in order to show the Japanese the awfulness of this weapon. He strongly believed that scientists should not be involved in the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons. In 1946, he set up the Atomic Scientists Association (ASA) to stimulate public debate around the issue of nuclear weapons. The association had a non-political agenda geared towards educating the public on the peaceful uses of radioactivity.
Rotblat established a relationship with Bertrand Russell. On December 23, 1954, Russell made a radio broadcast highlighting the dangers of nuclear testing; he was firm in his conviction that scientists should take the lead in informing the public. To this end, he convinced Einstein to help draft a manifesto. The Russell-Einstein Manifesto was signed by ten scientists including Rotblat.
Rotblat was tireless in his efforts to draw attention to the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear testing. He set up the Pugwash conferences that ultimately had twenty-two participants, international in scope. The participants included physicists, chemists, biologists and one lawyer. The focus of this conference was in the areas of radioactive fallout, abetting the arms race and the social responsibilities of scientists.
On December 10, 1995, Rotblat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his vigorous and extensive effort to facilitate peace and understanding in a troubled world. A brief excerpt of his acceptance speech is the following –
"The practical release of nuclear energy was the outcome of many years of experimental and theoretical research. It had the great potential for the common good. But the first the general public learned about this discovery was the news of the destruction of Hiroshima by the atom bomb. A splendid achievement of science and technology had turned malign. Science became identified with death and destruction."
He died in 2005. He was an extremely ethical and a profoundly thoughtful human being, who courageously lived up to his convictions and exerted a positive influence on the public understanding of the dangers of nuclear weapons and helped awaken scientists to their responsibilities to the society and people they serve.
Rotblat was a leading researcher on the biological effects of radiation and from the early 1950s to his death in 2005 he was a strong proponent of the abolition of nuclear weapons and the promotion of peace. He played an instrumental role in the establishment of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs and won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1995.
He was born in Warsaw, Poland on November 4, 1908 and had what he personally described as a happy childhood. At that time, Poland was divided and Warsaw was under the control of the Tsar of Russia. His father was a successful businessman and horse breeder. This prosperity was severely impacted by the First World War, for the borders were closed and horses were requisitioned by the government without compensation. So severe was the family’s decline that they endured extreme poverty.
Rotblat became an apprenticed electrician, and began his own business installing electrical lighting when the concept of electrification was in its infancy. He had a penchant for science and had an active imagination. In 1929, he joined the Free University of Poland. It was an unusual environment in that the staff held socialist views. The Free University had close ties with the Miroslaw Kerbbaum Radiological Laboratory of the Polish Scientific Society where Madam Curie served as the honorary director. Rotblat joined the Radiological Laboratory where he met the man who would be his mentor, Ludwig Wertenstein.
Wertenstein had spent two years in the Cambridge Laboratory where he worked with Ernest Rutherford, who discovered the atomic nucleus and James Chadwick, who discovered the subatomic particle, the neutron. In addition to his scientific credentials, Wertenstein was a linguist and a poet. From and ethical and moral standpoint, he was a humanist. It was the depth of Wertenstein’s moral character and his belief that a scientist always owns the responsibility for the products of his endeavors that strongly helped form Rotblat’s own thinking.
His early research involved the area of radiation detection, and built Geiger counters for this purpose. At the University of Warsaw he studied inelastic collisions and discovered the presence of Cobalt 60 (a radioactive isotope) in experiments in which he was bombarding gold with neutrons.
Neils Bohr, a leading nuclear physicist and a pioneer in the area of nuclear research, suggested that uranium 235 was the element responsible for atomic fission, and in 1939 the idea of a fission bomb was conceived. Rotblat joined Chadwick in Liverpool, and became recognized for his abilities along with his notable colleagues.
On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland and war was declared. Unfortunately, Rotblat’s wife, Tola, was trapped in Poland despite his attempts to rescue her. Tola inevitably died in the Majdanek concentration camp in Poland. Rotblat was not informed of her death until 1945; he was devastated by this news. On account of his close proximity and personal experience with the disastrous and destructive impact of Hitler’s’ regime, Rotbalt felt that Hitler needed to be deterred. In fact, he presented the feasibility of a uranium-fueled bomb to Chadwick. He wrestled with his conscience for although he felt that it was imperative to deter the Hitler’s onslaught, he felt strongly that it was not his job to work towards such a weapon of mass destruction.
Ultimately, Rotblat was invited to join the Manhattan Project in the US and he accepted. He moved to the Los Alamos Labs in New Mexico in 1943. He worked in the Oak Ridge Lab specializing in uranium isotope separation – a critical step in making the bomb. The Manhattan Project was under the direction of Robert Oppenheimer and had such notable scientists on board as Edward Teller, Richard Feynman and Enrico Fermi. Early on, Rotblat had ambivalent feeling about his involvement in the project.
He once attended a meeting in which General Groves, military head of the Manhattan Project, declared that the primary reason for developing the bomb was to defeat Stalin and subdue the Soviets. This explanation troubled Rotblat, for it seemed to have no connection to Nazi Germany. In addition, he concluded that the enormous resources required to successfully create a fission device was beyond Germany’s capability. He joined forces with Niels Bohr, who also wished to prevent an arms race with the Soviet Union, in trying to convince the allies to place the project under international supervision. This recommendation was ignored.
By the end of 1944, Rotblat resigned from the project. In 1985, Rotblat presented his point of view in the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists in an article entitled, Leaving the Bomb Project. In this piece, he claimed that the notion of using his knowledge to effect mass destruction was totally abhorrent to him. An excerpt of this paper is shown below.
________________________________________________________
“My concern about the purpose of our work gained substance from conversations with Niels Bohr. He used to come to my room at eight in the morning to listen to the IBBC news bulletin. Like myself, he could not stand the U.S. bulletins which urged us every few seconds to purchase a certain laxative! I owned a special radio on which I could receive the BBC World Service. Sometimes Bohr stayed on and talked to me about the social and political implications of the discovery of nuclear energy and of his worry about the dire consequences of a nuclear arms race between East and West which he foresaw. All this, and the growing evidence that the war in Europe would be over before the bomb project was completed, made my participation in it pointless. If it took the Americans such a long time, then my fear of the Germans being first was groundless. When it became evident, toward the end of 1944, that the Germans had abandoned their bomb project, the whole purpose of my being in Los Alamos ceased to be, and I asked for permission to leave and return to Britain. Why did other scientists not make the same decision? Obviously, one would not expect General Groves to wind up the project as soon as Germany was defeated, but there were many scientists for whom the German factor was the main motivation. Why did they not quit when this factor ceased to be? I was not allowed to discuss this issue with anybody after I declared my intention to leave Los Alamos, but earlier conversations, as well as much later ones, elicited several reasons.
The most frequent reason given was pure and simple scientific curiosity-the strong urge to find out whether the theoretical calculations and predictions would come true. These scientists felt that only after the test at Alamogordo should they enter into the debate about the use of the bomb. Others were prepared to put the matter off even longer, persuaded by the argument that many American lives would be saved if the bomb brought a rapid end to the war with Japan. Only when peace was restored would they take a hand in efforts to ensure that the bomb would not be used again. Still others, while agreeing that the project should have been stopped when the German factor ceased to operate, were not willing to take an individual stand because they feared it would adversely affect their future career.
The groups I have just described-scientists with a social conscience-were a minority in the scientific community. The majority was not bothered by moral scruples; they were quite content to leave it to others to decide how their work would be used. Much the same situation exists now in many countries in relation to work on military projects. But it is the morality issue at a time of war that perplexes and worries me most. Recently I came across a document released under the Freedom of Information Act. It is a letter, dated May 25, 1943, from Robert Oppenheimer to Enrico Fermi, on the military use of radioactive materials, specifically, the poisoning of food with radioactive strontium. The Smyth Report mentions such use as a possible German threat, but Oppenheimer apparently thought the idea worthy of consideration, and asked Fermi whether he could produce the strontium without letting too many people into the secret. He went on: “I think we should not attempt a plan unless we can poison food sufficient to kill a half a million men.”I am sure that in peacetime these same scientists would have viewed such a plan as barbaric; they would not have contemplated it even for a moment. Yet during the war it was considered quite seriously and, I presume, abandoned only because it was technically infeasible. After I told Chadwick that I wished to leave the project, he came back to me with very disturbing news. When he conveyed my wish to the intelligence chief at Los Alamos, he was shown a thick dossier on me with highly incriminating evidence. It boiled down to my being a spy: I had arranged with a contact in Santa Fe to return to England, and then to be flown to and parachuted onto the part of Poland held by the Soviets, in order to give the secrets of the atom bomb.
________________________________________________________
From 1945 – 1950 Rotblat was in charge of nuclear physics in Liverpool. He was so appalled by the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that he devoted his energy to the development of medical applications using nuclear radiation. In collaboration with Chadwick, the radioactive isotopes of iodine and phosphorus were found to have useful application. In addition, he collaborated with George Ansell in developing the use of radioactive iodine for the treatment of thyroid problems, a treatment protocol used to this day. He continued this kind of work – beneficial application of his knowledge of nuclear physics – at Bartholomew’s Medical College where he worked for twenty-six years starting in 1949.
On the news of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Rotblat was devastated, for he had hoped that the weapon would not work or that it would be used as a demonstration project in order to show the Japanese the awfulness of this weapon. He strongly believed that scientists should not be involved in the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons. In 1946, he set up the Atomic Scientists Association (ASA) to stimulate public debate around the issue of nuclear weapons. The association had a non-political agenda geared towards educating the public on the peaceful uses of radioactivity.
Rotblat established a relationship with Bertrand Russell. On December 23, 1954, Russell made a radio broadcast highlighting the dangers of nuclear testing; he was firm in his conviction that scientists should take the lead in informing the public. To this end, he convinced Einstein to help draft a manifesto. The Russell-Einstein Manifesto was signed by ten scientists including Rotblat.
Rotblat was tireless in his efforts to draw attention to the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear testing. He set up the Pugwash conferences that ultimately had twenty-two participants, international in scope. The participants included physicists, chemists, biologists and one lawyer. The focus of this conference was in the areas of radioactive fallout, abetting the arms race and the social responsibilities of scientists.
On December 10, 1995, Rotblat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his vigorous and extensive effort to facilitate peace and understanding in a troubled world. A brief excerpt of his acceptance speech is the following –
"The practical release of nuclear energy was the outcome of many years of experimental and theoretical research. It had the great potential for the common good. But the first the general public learned about this discovery was the news of the destruction of Hiroshima by the atom bomb. A splendid achievement of science and technology had turned malign. Science became identified with death and destruction."
He died in 2005. He was an extremely ethical and a profoundly thoughtful human being, who courageously lived up to his convictions and exerted a positive influence on the public understanding of the dangers of nuclear weapons and helped awaken scientists to their responsibilities to the society and people they serve.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Oh Yeah. . .
by Christina Rexrode at the Charlotte Observer
via Michael Moore’s Web Site.
Bank of America and Wells Fargo
→ Won’t Have to Pay Federal Income Taxes for 2009 ←
If it did not piss you off, then...
You’re stupid, or...
You’re ignorant of reality, or...
You’re delusionally thinking you’re ‘one-of-the-very-few,’ or...
You’re one-of-them... In which case you would be one of the most successful “allowed” thieves in all of recorded history. And even as I type this you’re still being “allowed” to get away with it.
Seriously... I am in awe of your stunning, and “allowed,” success of the theft...
Not to mention that the theft is from the very citizens whom are continuing to “allow” your ongoing, open, blatant, and, (again not to mention the obvious without any bombast or hyperbole,) *destructive*, theft of this nation’s wealth, and this nation’s Democracy, which was getting in the way of your stunningly successful, and “allowed” continuation of said theft.
No wonder you, as one of the-very-few, can’t stop yourselves from sneering at the other 99%.
They, the other 99%, just, inexplicably and insanely, keep allowing. . .
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Schooner Roseway
(photograph by Oberon)
The World Ocean School
is an internationally focused nonprofit,
nonsectarian organization dedicated to providing
challenging educational programs aboard the schooner Roseway.
Change The World
My name is Oberon
I started Globalove Think Tank
This is my F-150 pick-up truck
You'll know me when you see me
This is my message to the world
I hope it has some meaning for you
It's time to change the world
Good luck
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Fear incorporated
“Anxiety is a thin stream of fear trickling through the mind. If encouraged, it cuts a channel into which all other thoughts are drained.” Arthur Somers Roche
Anxiety is a feeling of dread or apprehension that occurs for no apparent reason. It is distinguished from fear because it occurs in situations where there are no outward signs of eminent danger. It becomes debilitating when it grows out-of-proportion to ordinary events in life. Anxiety is deceptive. First it focuses attention, and then it clamps the brain into rigidity by obsessively replaying past traumas
The arousal/suppression cycle is a clinical model for anxiety. It says anxiety is a case of ‘generalized punishment conditioning’, where the effects are felt in a wide range of circumstances. Feelings of arousal are adaptive in situations that present a challenge or adventure. Arousal ceases to be adaptive when it becomes a source of punishment in response to a challenge or adventure. According to the model, anxiety is a learned response. It is conditioned by the traumatic outcomes of past actions. It becomes debilitating when the feelings of trauma become overgeneralized and pervasive. Its effect is to suppress and inhibit a wider range of activity than what lead to the trauma in the first place.
“O.K.
Just a little pinprick.
There'll be no more aaaaaaaaah!
But you may feel a little sick.
Can you stand up?
I do believe it's working, good.
That'll keep you going through the show
Come on it's time to go”
Memories?
Old... But not dated.
by The Smothers Brothers. Enjoy.
You’re Welcome. I knew you would dig it.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Bucket List
Things to do before I "kick the bucket"
-----------------
Build an ultra-light amphibian
Go snorkling in the Caribbean
Go flying over the desert again
Build a hydroplane boat
Four-wheel up the mountain trail
Go sailing on a Caribbean schooner
Jump out of an airplane again
Build a three wheeled motorcycle
Go scuba diving in the Caribbean
Publish a book of my photographs
Drink rum on the St. Croix beach
Ride my motorcycle across the country
Go fishing with my kids again
Bone up on my sailing skills
Take the time to save the world
Go on vacation with my wife
Spend a day at a nudist camp
Buy a sailboat and sail away
Find an island and live there for awhile
Run around naked on the beach
---------------
You're gonna die...
You better get moving
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Secret Message
This is a "Magic Eye" 3-D image
to see the secret message
click on image to enlarge and
focus your eyes at a distance
as you look at the 3-D image
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Interdependence
I am always fascinated to see how the observations of early Eastern Philosophers, in this case the teaching of interdependence between sentient beings, prefigured the findings of modern-day Neuroscience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)