At the Atomic Energy Conference at Geneva, a lecture was delivered by Sir Ernest Rock Carling, Medical Research Council Advisor to the Home Office. In this lecture, he said, that “all atomic radiation had been found to be potentially injurious to living organisms, and that the vast majority of permanent genetic changes caused by such rays were harmful ” (Daily Telegraph, 15/8/55). He suggested, however, that “the diminished fertility and shortening of the life span may not be altogether to be deplored, because world population may outrun food supplies."
There was an immediate protest by the Swedish geneticist, Prof. A. Gustavsson, who pointed out that the radiation damage did not lead simply to a diminution of the birth-rate or simple sterility; children might still be conceived, but what kind of children would they be. “. . . they might die in miscarriage, or soon after birth, or develop serious abnormalities such as big-headed dwarfism, digestive derangements, diabetes type diseases, or mental deficiency.”
This is something to look forward to in the future. It is, to say the least, a most unappetising prospect.
The destructive power of one bomb, such as was exploded at Bikini, is such that it could make an area the size of Wales uninhabitable.
It was pointed out by Dr. Richard Doll at an earlier meeting in London in June, of the Medical Association for die Prevention of War, that of 11 pregnant mothers in Hiroshima, seven bore mentally defective children. At Nagasaki, of 98 pregnant mothers, 30 received major radiation effects. Of these 30, there were three abortions and four still-births, a loss of 23%. He is, be it noted, a research worker in the Statistical branch of the Medical Research Council in London. “Peace News,” 10/7/55).
There; is, of course, no evidence at all for the suggestion of Sir E. R. Carling, that the mutations or genetic changes would, in fact; produce men such as Aristotle, Leonardo, Newton, Pasteur or Einstein. The power of these radiation bombs is destructive and not constructive.
Here is a case of a man who knows his own subject but is ignorant of what is going on in other spheres of study. For example, an authority on land use. Dr. D. L. Dudley Stamp, in his book “Our Undeveloped World,” points out that large parts of Canada, the United States, Argentine and Australia, do not yield nearly as much per acre as they are capable of doing. He sees the best farming in North Western Europe, whose soil is being improved, not wasted by erosion. Leaving aside the “great problem lands of the tropics” and the vast irrigation projects, he concerns himself with food production in the temperate zones. If the best methods were applied here, he considers that, without any extension of the present cultivated area, the world could feed 3,000 million mouths. If one includes the farming lands at present unused or only partly used he estimates that the food could be produced for 10,000 million people, that is four times the present world population of 2,400 millions. (Review Daily Telegraph, 2/4/53).
Why is it, then, that half the population of the world is undernourished? The answer is pretty obvious. Most people live from hand to mouth and have not the means to buy what they need. We live in a Capitalist world, Where the cream of production goes to the class that owns, whilst the vast bulk of the population have to struggle as best they can; and above all. Capitalism is not concerned with producing as much as is required for human needs but only that smaller amount that can be sold profitably.
I. F.
No comments:
Post a Comment