Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:41:08.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Downwind of the Atomic State: US Continental Atmospheric Testing, Radioactive Fallout, and Organizational Deviance, 1951–1962

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2015

James Rice
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) conducted more than 100 atmospheric atomic detonations at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) between 1951 and 1962 depositing radioactivity throughout the United States but particularly the rural communities just “downwind.” The monitoring of radioactivity and efforts to warn downwind residents, however, failed to ensure their safety. I engage in archival analysis of AEC documents to examine decision making in reference to radioactive fallout. In recounting the socionatural history of atmospheric testing at the NTS, the present study argues operational conduct was lethargic due to the adoption of specious organizational heuristics. They included the assumption that fallout is subject to predictable atmospheric dispersion; fallout has noncumulative, undifferentiated effects on people; and downwind residents were prone to unreasoning panic. Thus AEC officials were continually chasing problems after they arose and in the absence of containment of fallout focused on containment of public perception and dialogue. The study concludes by highlighting the lessons relevant to contemporary sociotechnical activities.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Science History , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , Winter 2015 , pp. 647 - 676
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atomic Energy Commission (1945) “Atomic bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, article I, medical effects.” December 31. US Navy. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0316127.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1948) “Project ‘Nutmeg.’” December 31. Armed Forces Special Weapons Project. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0032697.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1950a) “Discussion of radiological hazards associated with a continental test site for atomic bombs.” August 1. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0030434.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1950b) “Memo for the president, subject: AEC has made a review of possible locations for the required additional atomic weapons site.” December 18. National Security Council. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0304388.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1950c) “Selection of a continental atomic test site: Report by the director of military application.” Attached to “Location of proving ground for atomic weapons.” December 13. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0030419.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1951a) “Public information plan, Operation Buster-Jangle. Report by associate director of information services.” September 5. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0052487.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1951b) “Public relations plan Operations Buster and Jangle.” July 24. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0077949.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1951c) “Press release: AEC authorized to use Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range for atomic weapons development program.” January 11. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0030348.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1951d) “Memo to A C Graves, subject: Jangle fallout problems.” June 28. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0090852.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1951e) “Memo to T L Shipman, subject: Preliminary report on Buster-Jangle fall-out program.” December 15. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0122093.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1952a) “Tumbler-Snapper information plan.” Santa Fe Operations Office. December 31. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0026272.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1952b) “Summary of relations between the AEC and the photographic industry regarding radioactive contamination from atomic weapon tests, from January through December 1951. Report by the director of military applications.” January 17. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0072173.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1953a) “Memo, subject: Documentation of establishment of continental test site.” September 14. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0028590.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1953b) “Report of committee on operational future of Nevada proving grounds.” May 11. Santa Fe Operations Office. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0128723.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1953c) “Continental weapons tests . . . public safety.” March 31. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0317129.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1953d) “Fourteenth semiannual report of the Atomic Energy Commission.” July 31. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0727877.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1953e) “AEC meeting minutes no. 865, subject: Fallout resulting from May 19 shot; discussion of criteria for determining whether a test detonation is fired.” May 21. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0020435.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1953f) “Monitoring of cow's milk for fresh fission products following an atomic detonation.” December 16. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0000088.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1954a) “Report on sheep losses adjacent to the Nevada proving grounds.” January 6. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0020422.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1954b) “Report of the committee to study Nevada proving grounds.” February 1. Nuclear Testing Archive Accession No. NV0061646.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1955) Atomic Tests in Nevada. Motion picture, 25 minutes.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1957) “Operation Plumbbob offsite radiological safety report Nevada test site 1957.” December 31. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0151903.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1963a) “Observed relations between deposition level of fresh fission products from Nevada tests and resulting levels of I-131 in fresh milk.” March 1. Division of Biology and Medicine. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0032236.Google Scholar
Atomic Energy Commission (1963b) “Iodine-131 in fresh milk and human thyroids following a single deposition of nuclear test fallout.” June 1. Division of Biology and Medicine. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0001758.Google Scholar
Ball, Howard (1986) Justice Downwind: America's Atomic Testing Program in the 1950s. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beamish, Thomas D. (2002) Silent Spill: The Organization of an Industrial Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Ulrich (2009) World at Risk. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Boyer, Paul (1994) By the Bomb's Early Light. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers (1984) The Limits of Rationality: An Essay on the Social and Moral Thought of Max Weber. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cable, Sherry, Shriver, Thomas E., and Hastings, Donald W. (1999 ) “The silenced majority: Quiescence and government social control on the Oak Ridge Nuclear Reservation.” Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 7: 59–81.Google Scholar
Cable, Sherry, Shriver, Thomas E., and Mix, Tamara L. (2008) “Risk society and contested illness: The case of nuclear weapons workers.” American Sociological Review 73 (3): 380–401.Google Scholar
Carroll, Patrick (1996) “Science, power, bodies: The mobilization of nature as state formation.” Journal of Historical Sociology 9 (2): 139–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Patrick (2009) “Articulating theories of states and state formation.” Journal of Historical Sociology 22 (4): 553–603.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute (2002) A Feasibility Study of the Health Consequences to the American Population of Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/ (accessed June 2012).Google Scholar
Clarke, Lee (1993) “The disqualification heuristic: When do organizations misperceive risk?” Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 5: 289–312.Google Scholar
Clarke, Lee (1999) Mission Improbable: Using Fantasy Documents to Tame Disaster. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Lee (2006) Worst Cases: Terror and Catastrophe in the Popular Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Lee, and Perrow, Charles (1996) “Prosaic organizational failure.” American Behavioral Scientist 39 (8): 1040–56.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stanley (1996) “Government responses to human rights reports: Claims, denials, and counterclaims.” Human Rights Quarterly 18 (3): 517–43.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stanley (2001) States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Department of Energy (1980) “Discussions with Frank Butrico monitor at St. George, Utah, May 1953.” August 14. Nuclear Testing Archive, Accession No. NV0011593.Google Scholar
Department of Energy (1995) A Perspective on Atmospheric Nuclear Tests in Nevada. DOE/NV-296 (Rev. 2). Las Vegas: Nevada Operations Office.Google Scholar
Department of Energy (2000) United States Nuclear Tests: July 1945 through September 1992. DOE/NV-209 (Rev. 15). Las Vegas: Nevada Operations Office.Google Scholar
Fehner, Terrence R., and Gosling, F. G. (2006) Battlefield of the Cold War: The Nevada Test Site. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy.Google Scholar
Ford, Daniel (1982) The Cult of the Atom. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Fradkin, Philip L. (1989) Fallout: An American Nuclear Tragedy. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, William R. (1992) “Nothing recedes like success? Risk analysis and the organizational amplification of risks.” Risk: Issues in Health and Safety 3 (1): 1–35.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, William R. (1993) “Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions.” Social Forces 71 (4): 909–32.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, William R. (2001) “Risk, responsibility and recreancy.” Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 9: 87–108.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, William R., and Alario, Margarita (2007) “Weapons of mass distraction: Magicianship, misdirection, and the dark side of legitimation.” Sociological Forum 22 (2): 146–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohmberg, Eric, Goble, Robert, Sanchez, Virginia, and Quigley, Dianne (2000) “The assessment of radiation exposures in Native American communities from nuclear weapons testing in Nevada.” Risk Analysis 20 (1): 101–12.Google Scholar
Fuller, John G. (1984) The Day We Bombed Utah. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Ravetz, Jerome R. (1993) “Science for the post-normal age.” Futures 25 (7): 739–55.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Carole (1993) American Ground Zero. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gephart, Robert P. Jr. (1984) “Making sense of organizationally based environmental disasters.” Journal of Management 10 (2): 205–25.Google Scholar
Hacker, Barton C. (1994) Elements of Controversy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Michael R. (1993) Archival Strategies and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (1980) “The Forgotten Guinea Pigs”: A Report on Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation Sustained as a Result of the Nuclear Weapons Testing Program Conducted by the United States Government. 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (2002) Fact Sheet on Fallout Report and Related Maps. Report released February 28, 2002. Takoma Park, MD, http://ieer.org/resource/nuclear-testing/fact-sheet-fallout-report-related/ (accessed December 2012).Google Scholar
Johnson, Carl J. (1984) “Cancer Incidence in an Area of Radioactive Fallout Downwind from the Nevada Test Site.” Journal of the American Medical Association 251 (2): 230–36.Google Scholar
Johnson, Carl J. (1987) “A cohort study of cancer incidence in Mormon families exposed to nuclear fallout versus an area-based study of cancer deaths in whites in southwestern Utah.” American Journal of Epidemiology 125 (1): 166–68.Google Scholar
Kelle, Udo (2005) “‘Emergence’ vs. ‘forcing’ of empirical data? A crucial problem of ‘grounded theory’ reconsidered.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (2): Art. 27.Google Scholar
Kinsella, William J. (2001) “Nuclear boundaries: Material and discursive containment at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.” Science as Culture 10 (2): 163–94.Google Scholar
Kirsch, Scott (1997) “Watching the bombs go off: Photography, nuclear landscapes, and spectator democracy.” Antipode 29 (3): 227–55.Google Scholar
Kirsch, Scott (2004) “Harold Knapp and the geography of normal controversy: Radioiodine in the historical environment.” Osiris 19: 167–81.Google Scholar
Kirsch, Scott (2005) Proving Grounds: Project Plowshare and the Unrealized Dream of Nuclear Earthmoving. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Knapp, Harold A. (1964) “Iodine-131 in fresh milk and human thyroids following a single deposition of nuclear test fallout.” Nature 202 (4932): 534–37.Google Scholar
Kuletz, Valerie L. (1998) The Tainted Desert: Environmental and Social Ruin in the American West. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Land, C. E. (1979) “The hazards of fallout or of epidemiologic research.” New England Journal of Medicine 300 (8): 431–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Land, Charles E., Machado, Stella G., and McKay, Frank W. (1984) “Childhood leukemia and fallout from the Nevada nuclear tests.” Science 223 (4632): 139–44.Google Scholar
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (1950) The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, ed. Samuel Glasstone. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Lyon, J. L., Klauber, M. R., Gardner, J. W., and Udall, K. S. (1979) “Childhood leukemias associated with fallout from nuclear testing.” New England Journal of Medicine 300 (8): 397–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machado, S. G., Land, C. E., and McKay, F. W. (1987) “Cancer mortality and radioactive fallout in southwestern Utah.” American Journal of Epidemiology 125 (1): 44–61.Google Scholar
Malloy, Sean L. (2012) “‘A very pleasant way to die’: Radiation effects and the decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan.” Diplomatic History 36 (3): 515–45.Google Scholar
Miller, Richard L. (1991) Under the Cloud: The Decades of Nuclear Testing. The Woodlands, TX: Two Sixty Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Richard L. (2001) The U.S. Atlas of Nuclear Fallout. Vol. 1. The Woodlands, TX: Two Sixty Press.Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright (2000 [1959]) The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mix, Tamara L., Cable, Sherry, and Shriver, Thomas E. (2009) “Social control and contested environmental illness: The repression of ill nuclear weapons workers.” Human Ecology Review 16 (2): 172–83.Google Scholar
National Cancer Institute (1997) Estimated Exposures and Thyroid Doses Received by the American People from Iodine-131 Fallout Following Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Tests. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/i131/nci-reports (accessed June 2014).Google Scholar
Perrow, Charles (1999) Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schull, William J. (1995) Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. New York: Wiley-Liss.Google Scholar
Scott, John (1990) A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Simon, Steven L., Bouville, André, and Land, Charles E. (2006) “Fallout from nuclear weapons tests and cancer risks.” American Scientist 94 (1): 48–57.Google Scholar
Smith, R. Jeffrey (1982a) “Scientists implicated in atom test deception.” Science 218 (4572): 545–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R. Jeffrey (1982b) “Atom bomb tests leave infamous legacy.” Science 218 (4569): 266–69.Google Scholar
Stevens, Walter, et al. (1990) “Leukemia in Utah and radioactive fallout from the Nevada test site: A case-control study.” Journal of the American Medical Association 264 (5): 585–91.Google Scholar
Titus, A. Costandina (2001) Bombs in the Backyard: Atomic Testing and American Politics. 2nd ed. Reno: University of Nevada Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Barry A. (1976) “The organizational and interorganizational development of disasters.” Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (3): 378–97.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Diane (1996) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Diane (1999) “The dark side of organizations: Mistake, misconduct, and disaster.” Annual Review of Sociology 25: 271–305.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Diane (2002) “Signals and interpretive work: The role of culture in a theory of practical action,” in Cerulo, Karen A. (ed.) Culture in Mind: Toward a Sociology of Culture and Cognition. New York: Routledge: 28–54.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Diane (2004) “Theorizing disaster: Analogy, historical ethnography, and the Challenger accident.” Ethnography 5 (3): 313–45.Google Scholar
Walker, J. Samuel (2000) Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max (1978 [1920]) Economy and Society. Vol. 1, ed. Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weick, Karl E., Sutcliffe, Kathleen M., and Obstfeld, David (2005) “Organizing and the process of sensemaking.” Organization Science 16 (4): 409–21.Google Scholar
Yin, Robert K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar