This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Hiroshima is contaminated with radiation. It will be barren of life and nothing will grow for 75 years. Hiroshima will be barren of human and animal life for 75 years. Any scientists who go there to survey the damage will be committing suicide." - false claim made by Dr. Harold Jacobsen (a Manhattan Project health physicist who knew nothing about the fallout particle size distribution in the air burst over Hiroshima), published in the Washington Post on August 8, 1945. Both Groves and Laurence were attacking this lie that caused panic in the survivors [ [1]]. Most of the casualties in both cities were due to blast and thermal radiation, with infected wounds made worse by the synergism of initial radiation exposure (which lowers the white blood cell count). There was no local fallout because the fireball did not touch the ground. The neutron induced activity in Hiroshima was (as intended) too low even at ground zero to cause radiation sickness, owing to the height of the detonation. The "black rain" in Hiroshima originated from the firestorm which began 30 minutes after the explosion, by which time the radioactive mushroom cloud had been blown many miles downwind by the wind. The actual radioactive fallout around Hiroshima was not lethal and was due not to the firestorm "black rain" or fallout but to the "cloud seeding" rainout effect from hydroscopic salt crystals in sea level coastal air being entrained unto the mushroom cloud by the afterwinds [ [2]]. Groves and Laurence were quite correct to debunk the false claims about radiation that were causing panic. The recent "controversy" is contrived propaganda by people who have no idea of the situation in 1945. 82.21.58.162 ( talk) 20:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The "Burchett" in the heading is Wilfred Burchett. The Goodmans' failure to acknowledge his political leaning and history while using him as a major source speaks for itself regarding their agenda.-- Reedmalloy ( talk) 07:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
There has recently been some controversy over Laurence's role in reporting the aftermath of the atomic bombing. There is a claim that he won the Pulitzer for essentially spreading false US propaganda, for which some believe he should be stripped of the prize.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htm
“Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 from initially non lethal burn and blast injuries, acute radiation syndrome and related disease, the effects of which were aggravated by lack of medical resources, range from 90,000 to 166,000. One speculative estimate suggests that up to, or in excess of, 200,000 had died as a consequence of Little Boy, in the "five-year death toll", as cancer and other long-term effects took hold. An epidemiology study by the Japanese Radiation Effects Research Foundation states that from 1950 to 2000, 46% of leukemia deaths and 11% of solid cancer deaths among the bomb survivors were due to radiation from the bombs, the statistical excess being estimated to 200 leukemia and 1700 solid cancers.” Christian Roess ( talk) 04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no mention of what action was taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.151.139 ( talk) 15:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
On my mother's side...anyone who can help me with contact info for Mr. Laurence's family members, who might have or know of someone with info on his family tree, I'd appreciate them contacting me.
Tom Leland tomleland@sbcglobal.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.36.216 ( talk) 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be an OR addition since it is unsourced. Parts of it are confusing and also don't seem particularly relevant. For example the claim 'Laurence was proved right: Hiroshima was not made barren of human and animal life for 75 years' appears to be about someone else's statements at the time but while it may be true he was right about this, it doesn't appear to be what he's been criticised for (and it's definitely not responding to anything in the article just offering a confusing statement about him being right and about something that didn't happen). Nor does the fact others went too far in the other direction somehow negate the criticism of Laurence. Note that I'm not saying the criticism of Laurence is valid, simply pointing out this apparent OR response doesn't really appear to address the criticism very well and instead seems to go off on a tangent. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This New York Times article headline sums up the POV problem: " How a Star New York Times Reporter Got Paid by Government Agencies He Covered". That needs to be more clearly addressed in the article, and certainly in the lede. --- Possibly ☎ 18:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Hiroshima is contaminated with radiation. It will be barren of life and nothing will grow for 75 years. Hiroshima will be barren of human and animal life for 75 years. Any scientists who go there to survey the damage will be committing suicide." - false claim made by Dr. Harold Jacobsen (a Manhattan Project health physicist who knew nothing about the fallout particle size distribution in the air burst over Hiroshima), published in the Washington Post on August 8, 1945. Both Groves and Laurence were attacking this lie that caused panic in the survivors [ [1]]. Most of the casualties in both cities were due to blast and thermal radiation, with infected wounds made worse by the synergism of initial radiation exposure (which lowers the white blood cell count). There was no local fallout because the fireball did not touch the ground. The neutron induced activity in Hiroshima was (as intended) too low even at ground zero to cause radiation sickness, owing to the height of the detonation. The "black rain" in Hiroshima originated from the firestorm which began 30 minutes after the explosion, by which time the radioactive mushroom cloud had been blown many miles downwind by the wind. The actual radioactive fallout around Hiroshima was not lethal and was due not to the firestorm "black rain" or fallout but to the "cloud seeding" rainout effect from hydroscopic salt crystals in sea level coastal air being entrained unto the mushroom cloud by the afterwinds [ [2]]. Groves and Laurence were quite correct to debunk the false claims about radiation that were causing panic. The recent "controversy" is contrived propaganda by people who have no idea of the situation in 1945. 82.21.58.162 ( talk) 20:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The "Burchett" in the heading is Wilfred Burchett. The Goodmans' failure to acknowledge his political leaning and history while using him as a major source speaks for itself regarding their agenda.-- Reedmalloy ( talk) 07:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
There has recently been some controversy over Laurence's role in reporting the aftermath of the atomic bombing. There is a claim that he won the Pulitzer for essentially spreading false US propaganda, for which some believe he should be stripped of the prize.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htm
“Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 from initially non lethal burn and blast injuries, acute radiation syndrome and related disease, the effects of which were aggravated by lack of medical resources, range from 90,000 to 166,000. One speculative estimate suggests that up to, or in excess of, 200,000 had died as a consequence of Little Boy, in the "five-year death toll", as cancer and other long-term effects took hold. An epidemiology study by the Japanese Radiation Effects Research Foundation states that from 1950 to 2000, 46% of leukemia deaths and 11% of solid cancer deaths among the bomb survivors were due to radiation from the bombs, the statistical excess being estimated to 200 leukemia and 1700 solid cancers.” Christian Roess ( talk) 04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no mention of what action was taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.151.139 ( talk) 15:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
On my mother's side...anyone who can help me with contact info for Mr. Laurence's family members, who might have or know of someone with info on his family tree, I'd appreciate them contacting me.
Tom Leland tomleland@sbcglobal.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.36.216 ( talk) 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be an OR addition since it is unsourced. Parts of it are confusing and also don't seem particularly relevant. For example the claim 'Laurence was proved right: Hiroshima was not made barren of human and animal life for 75 years' appears to be about someone else's statements at the time but while it may be true he was right about this, it doesn't appear to be what he's been criticised for (and it's definitely not responding to anything in the article just offering a confusing statement about him being right and about something that didn't happen). Nor does the fact others went too far in the other direction somehow negate the criticism of Laurence. Note that I'm not saying the criticism of Laurence is valid, simply pointing out this apparent OR response doesn't really appear to address the criticism very well and instead seems to go off on a tangent. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This New York Times article headline sums up the POV problem: " How a Star New York Times Reporter Got Paid by Government Agencies He Covered". That needs to be more clearly addressed in the article, and certainly in the lede. --- Possibly ☎ 18:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)