Sunday May 27, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Anti-nuke groups oppose parks at sites where A-bombs were developed

Politics Jul. 22, 2011 - 03:48PM JST ( 4 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

4 Comments

2

FadamorJul. 22, 2011 - 11:15PM JST

"It is a debasement of the national parks idea," said Greg Mello, a co-founder of the anti-nuclear watchdog, Los Alamos Study Group.

Greg needs to take some advice from his last name. The "national parks idea" was to permanently set aside land to prevent it from being completely buried under roads and buildings. They want to set aside land for a national park, so it sounds to me like this is EXACTLY what the "national parks idea" is about.

"Are we really poised to make a national park out of a few shabby ruins where we built instruments of mass murder, delivered to statesmen the instruments of universal destruction, and destroyed the marriage between science and human values?," Mello wrote in an email to board members and others.

Yet you're just fine with ALL the national parks we have that were the site of thousands of Americans who slaughtered each other, leaving body parts strewn across the battlefields? Where's your moral outrage over THOSE national parks commemorating events where we were killing ourselves?

Interesting that this is brought up now, considering there's a re-enactment going on today commemorating the 150th anniversary of one such battle. The 1st battle of Bull Run (if you're from the north) or the 1st Battle of Manassas (if you're from the south). It's happening next to the Manassas Battlefield National Park rather than in it because the re-enactment for the 100th anniversary tore up the park so badly that the National Park Service said, "Never again". The National Park Service has always been more concerned with preserving the land than with what activities went on there. They'll add educational stuff as long as it doesn't tear up the land too much.
1

John BeckerJul. 23, 2011 - 01:19AM JST

I live about 10 miles from Oak Ridge and have gone on the official tour of the historic sites, which are most interesting. The tours are a collaboration by volunteer tour guides, the Museum of Science and Energy in Oak Ridge, and the Department of Energy. I'm not against the establishment of a National Historical Park, but I don't really know what additional benefit there would be to the visitor. Maybe they just want the parks established to get more federal money for preservation of the sites.

I can understand anti-nuclear groups being against this; I expect they see it as a glorification of nuclear weapons. Personally, I see it as the preservation of some very significant history.
1

DeploreJul. 23, 2011 - 05:01AM JST

The anti-nuclear groups are so off base here. I see they fail to mention the other benefits of splitting the atom - nuclear energy and the isotopes used in medical imaging.
0

goddogJul. 23, 2011 - 10:34AM JST

Three great posts here above mine. All thumbs up.