LETTER : Fifty years on and still in denial about the bomb
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.BRIAN CATHCART reports the letter from Rudolph Peierls and Otto Frisch in which they advised the British government that the "super- bomb" "would spread deadly radioactivity over a large area, a characteristic that would reduce its usefulness as a battlefield weapon" ("One man and his bomb", Review, 9 July).
But, as I document in Hotspots: the Legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to be published next month, this was not the view of the American scientific and military command responsible for the bombings. To them, these two bombs were "air bursts" which would disperse their radioactivity into the atmosphere and leave little residual radiation or fall-out on the ground. Norman Ramsay, chief scientist at Tinian Airbase when the Enola Gay took off to bomb Hiroshima, has said: "The people who made the decision to drop the bomb thought that all casualties would be standard explosion casualties." The first reports that there was mass radia- tion sickness in the cities, a fortnight after the detonations, were dismissed in Washington as a hoax.
The bombs were detonated at the height of the Empire State building, yet as recently as 1993 the American director of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima wrote: "As is expected for such heights, the fireball did not touch the ground or deposit material directly on the city." Myths such as this - that it is possible to detonate a 12 or 20 kiloton device over a densely populated city at the height of a building without irradiating the citizens or occupation soldiers - have been the basis for denial of compensation for radiation-induced injuries ever since. On the 50th anniversary of the first atomic explosion (16 July 1945), surely it is time to redress these injustices.
Sue Rabbitt Roff
Centre for Medical Education,
University of Dundee
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments