Christie Brinkley: Don't let the US resume nuclear weapon tests that ended decades ago
The United States and other nuclear powers are now moving closer to resuming nuclear weapons tests, decades after testing ended. This highly disturbing trend must be halted.
Since the atomic age, 2,056 nuclear weapons have been detonated, 528 of them above the ground. The United States and Soviet Union accounted for about 85% of these tests. The explosive power of atmospheric tests equaled 29,000 Hiroshima bombs. Airborne radioactive fallout circled the globe, re-entered the environment through precipitation, and entered human bodies through food and water.
Cold War bomb testing was part of a massive increase in the number of nuclear weapons, which peaked at more than 60,000. After nuclear war was barely avoided during the Cuban missile crisis, public pressure convinced leaders to ban all above-ground tests in 1963 — a treaty that has never been violated.
The test ban treaty was a huge achievement for peace, beginning eased tensions between nuclear nations. It also was a landmark for public health. A study by St. Louis residents and scientists found an enormous buildup of radioactive strontium-90 levels in baby teeth — 63 times higher in children born in 1963 compared to those born in 1950.
The tooth study proved fallout was entering bodies, as strontium-90 is not found in nature. It influenced President John F. Kennedy and leaders to pursue a test ban, which saved millions of lives. The baby tooth study showed a sharp drop in strontium-90 of more than 50% in the five years after the treaty.
After the 1963 treaty, bomb testing continued underground, but stopped completely after the Cold War. A 1996 treaty to outlaw all tests was agreed to by 178 nations. Only 11 tests, all underground, have been conducted since the mid-1990s.
But tensions between major powers have worsened, along with the potential for resumed bomb testing. The Biden administration actively expanded the Nevada Test Site for nuclear devices, cutting roads and digging new tunnels to prepare for testing. Similar actions are occurring in Russia and China.
Language in Project 2025, several of whose architects work in the Trump administration, urges that the U.S. 'reject ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and indicate a willingness to conduct nuclear tests in response to adversary nuclear developments if necessary.' A Jan. 15 report by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Peters addressed potential options for test resumption — including above-ground tests.
The report states: 'If told that the Nevada test site cannot be made ready inside a year, the President may order the above-ground testing of a nuclear weapon. … And while the United States leaving the Test Ban Treaty may not be optimal and may indeed have negative downstream effects, doing so may be necessary to stave off further adversary escalation.'
The report does not endorse above-ground testing, but does not condemn it. 'Negative downstream effects' refers to atmospheric testing adding toxic fallout to an already overburdened environment, imperiling the health of Americans, especially children. President Donald Trump recently stated: 'There's no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We have so many.' But concerns about resuming bomb tests continue.
Many experts believe resumed U.S. testing means Russia and China would also begin testing, raising the chance that a nuclear exchange — perhaps a nuclear war — would occur. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock — a measure of how close the world is to nuclear war — is at just 89 seconds, the lowest in the atomic age, well below the 17-minute mark in 1991, as the Cold War ended.
The world cannot afford a rerun of the nuclear arms race, which humanity was fortunate to survive. The potential consequences are staggering. Thousands, even millions of Americans could suffer from cancer and other diseases from exposure to toxic fallout in bomb tests. And a nuclear war could kill hundreds of millions, from acute radiation exposure and cancer.
While officials make nuclear policy decisions, people have the power to ensure they choose the right path. This power is not just a hope, but one that has a proven track record. More than 60 years ago, grassroots pressure over fallout buildup in children and potential nuclear war moved leaders to pass the test ban.
The same populist effort must happen now, to avoid the unthinkable — a world with nuclear weapons testing and potential nuclear war. Instead, we must move in a more peaceful direction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee prohibition on gender affirming care for minors
Demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices hear arguments in a case about Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors on Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law prohibiting gender affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don't qualify as a protected class. In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court issued a 6-3 ruling Wednesday overturning a lower court's finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court's decision and sent it to the high court. The court's three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to 'political whims.' Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition. In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 'warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.' But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex. 'Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' the ruling states. The ruling says the application of the law 'does not turn on sex,' either, because it doesn't prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex. The House Republican Caucus issued a statement saying, 'This is a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America's children.' Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from 'irreversible medical procedures.' 'The simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is 'enough is enough,'' Johnson said in a statement. The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision: 'We are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to side with the Tennessee legislature's anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors. We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 youth across the nation.' The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the law enforces 'a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.' The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve 'impermissible stereotypes.' But if the law's classifications aren't covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn't required unless the law is motivated by 'invidious discriminatory purpose.' 'And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,' the ruling says. In response to the outcome, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said Tennessee voters' common sense won over 'judicial activism' on a law spurred by an increase in treatment for transgender children. 'I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood,' Skrmetti said. U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized the ruling just moments after it came out after being asked about it during a press conference. 'This Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that one of their jobs is to protect individual rights and protect individuals from being discriminated against,' Schumer said. 'It's an awful decision.' Democrats, he said, are 'going to explore every solution,' though he didn't elaborate. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion: 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The ACLU said in a statement the decision is based on the record and context of the Tennessee case and doesn't extend to other cases involving transgender status and discrimination. Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, called the ruling 'devastating,' but despite the setback said transgender people still have healthcare options. 'The court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful,' Strangio said in a statement. Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@ SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
4 hours ago
Man charged with killing lawmaker could face rarity for Minnesota: the death penalty
MINNEAPOLIS -- The man charged with killing a prominent Minnesota lawmaker and wounding another could face something that is a rarity for Minnesota but could become more common under the Trump administration: the death penalty. Minnesota abolished capital punishment in 1911, and the state's last execution was a botched hanging in 1906. But federal prosecutors announced charges against Vance Boelter on Monday that can carry the death penalty. It's not unheard of for state and federal prosecutors to both pursue criminal cases for the same offense, especially in high-profile matters. In this case federal authorities essentially grabbed the lead from the state prosecutor, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty. Boelter had been scheduled to make his first court appearance on state charges Monday, but instead marshals took him from the county jail to the U.S. courthouse in St. Paul, where he appeared on the more serious federal charges. Boelter is accused of fatally shooting former Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, in their home early Saturday in the northern Minneapolis suburbs. Before that, authorities say, he also shot and wounded another Democrat, Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, who lived a few miles away. He surrendered Sunday night after what authorities have called the largest search in Minnesota history. Two of the six federal counts can carry the death penalty, something federal prosecutors have not sought in a Minnesota-based case since the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976. 'Will we seek the death penalty? It's too early to tell. That is one of the options,' Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson said Monday at a news conference where he revealed new details of what he described as a meticulously planned attack. They included allegations that Boelter also stopped at the homes of two other lawmakers that night and had dozens of other Democrats as potential targets, including officials in other states. Boelter's federal defenders have declined to comment on the case, and he has not entered a plea. On her first day in office in February, Attorney General Pam Bondi lifted a moratorium on federal executions that was imposed under the Biden administration in 2021. Only three defendants remain on federal death row after Biden converted 37 of their sentences to life in prison. Bondi has since authorized federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in at least three cases, including against Luigi Mangione for the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. In the other two cases, the Justice Department has said it is seeking the death penalty against defendants charged with killing fellow prison inmates. President Donald Trump's first administration carried out 13 federal executions, more than the administration of any other president in modern history. The federal intervention in Boelter's case appeared to irritate Moriarty, the county's former chief public defender, who was elected on a police reform and racial justice platform in 2022 after the police killing of George Floyd. At a news conference Monday to announce the state charges, Moriarty gave only vague answers in response to questions about the interplay between the federal and state investigations. But she acknowledged 'there's a tension' and said federal officials 'can speak for themselves.' Moriarty said she intends to press forward in state court regardless and to seek an indictment for first-degree murder for the killings of the Hortmans, which would carry a mandatory sentence of life without parole. Her office did not immediately respond to a request for further comment Tuesday. As evidence of the tensions, the county attorney refused to clarify how Boelter' first hearings would play out. Court records show that Boelter was called for a first appearance in Hennepin County on Monday and that because he was not there as he was in federal custody, the judge issued a bench warrant as a formality, as requested by prosecutors. 'Usually murder cases are overwhelmingly handled in state courts,' said Mark Osler, a death penalty expert at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. 'Clearly this is something of national interest. And that seemed to play a role in the decision that the Justice Department is making here.' Osler, who formerly served as Moriarty's deputy county attorney and head of her criminal division, as well as assistant U.S. attorney in Detroit, acknowledged that there are often tensions between state and federal prosecutors. 'There's no doubt that it's complicated,' Osler said. 'And it's hard to avoid the sense of the older sibling grabbing something away from the younger sibling.' If federal officials do pursue the death penalty, Osler said, they will face an unusual challenge: 'a jury pool drawn from the citizens of a state that has rejected the death penalty for over 100 years. It's not the same as choosing people in a state where there's a history of support for the death penalty, such as Texas.' After his federal court appearance, Boelter was taken to the Sherburne County Jail in suburban Elk River, where federal prisoners are often held. Thompson told reporters that the federal case 'does not nullify the state charges. They remain in place. ... My expectation based on prior cases is the federal case, the federal charges, will be litigated first, but the state charges won't necessarily go anywhere.' Boelter's next federal court appearance is June 27. He does not have any further appearances scheduled in state court. 'There's a natural competitiveness that occurs sometimes between jurisdictions, but you have to hope that in the end, they're all facing the same way where there's something as important to public safety as this case is,' Osler said.
Politico
8 hours ago
- Politico
Facing Colorado River crunch, Trump admin eyes SoCal groundwater
The situation on the Colorado River — the water supply for 40 million Westerners and half of all Californians — is dire. The waterway's flows have shrunk 20 percent since the turn of the century and climate scientists say it's not unreasonable to think that another 20 percent could be lost in the coming decades. To cities, farmers, tribes and industries from Wyoming to Mexico — but especially in legally vulnerable Arizona — that looks like pain. To the Los Angeles-based water company Cadiz Inc., that looks like opportunity. After trying and failing for more than two decades to pump ancient groundwater from beneath the Mojave Desert and sell it to Southern California water districts, the controversial company has set its sights on new customers over the border in the Grand Canyon State. 'We are hopeful that our projects can support the Bureau's efforts to manage Colorado River resources and Lake Mead,' Cadiz CEO Susan Kennedy (a former chief of staff to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger) said on Wednesday. Her pitch: There's up to 2.5 million acre-feet of untapped water in the Mojave Desert her company can move and store across the arid Southwest. In California, the project is a perpetual political football, opposed by the likes of the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was broadly a champion of water projects but was concerned it would harm the desert environment. One former state lawmaker compared the dispute to 'Hatfield and McCoy, Palestinians and the Jews.' Now, Trump is getting in the mix. On Monday, the Interior Department announced plans to sign a memorandum of understanding with the latest incarnation of the project, called the Mojave Groundwater Bank, touting it as 'an important tool to improve drought resiliency in the Colorado River Basin' though recognizing that it is only in 'early development.' And on Tuesday, the Trump administration official leading Colorado River negotiations for the federal government suggested to water power players in Arizona that they consider the project. 'The Cadiz sponsors think they have a lot of groundwater that could go somewhere. If it turns out they are right, would Arizona want to have a conversation about that water?' Scott Cameron, an acting assistant secretary at the Interior Department, asked at a meeting of a state water committee. For the Trump administration, trumpeting Cadiz is a chance to show it's doing something about the Colorado River despite the seven Western states remaining sharply divided over how to divvy up water cuts after current rules expire in 2026. For Cadiz, the endorsement is a political lifeline after decades of in-state opposition — and a return to more favorable treatment under the Trump administration even after the company dumped a lobbying firm with powerful Trump ties, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, after Biden took office. Under the Biden administration, Cadiz rebranded itself as an environmental justice-focused company seeking to fill accessibility gaps in economically depressed regions of the state. Kennedy even expressed concern after the November election that a new Trump administration would push back on its plans to repurpose 80 miles of steel pipe it purchased from the terminated Keystone XL oil pipeline to transport water. Opponents of the project, including conservation groups who say it could harm sensitive desert ecosystems, still see it as the same old concept. 'It's not surprising that an administration that wasted over 2 billion gallons of water under the guise of wildfire response thinks it's a good idea to overdraft a desert aquifer that supports federally protected land,' said Neal Desai, the senior program director for the National Parks Conservation Association. It's likely the project will draw some interest within Arizona, especially among the lowest-priority water users who are desperate to protect their Colorado River supplies as the seven states that share the waterway negotiate over new rules to govern the river. The state has already committed to cutting more than a quarter of its use from the river, and any cuts beyond that will fall first on Central Arizona cities and tribes unless alternative deals can be reached. But it will take a lot more than interest to make a deal happen. Cadiz has run into opposition from California state lawmakers and the State Lands Commission, which after urging from state Sen. Monique Limón and Assemblymember Isaac Bryan told Kennedy in a letter last week not to start construction on the pipeline that would transfer water without agency buy-in, which could take a year to two years. Crucially, Cadiz would almost certainly need buy-in from the long-skeptical Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, because any deals with Arizona would likely include Metropolitan taking Cadiz's water and leaving a portion of its Colorado River water in Lake Mead in exchange. Many of the hurdles Metropolitan has cited in the past, from water quality concerns to operational challenges, remain — and the district's board of directors also includes two prominent California environmentalists. Cadiz has yet to formally approach Metropolitan about its new plan. 'Metropolitan's board does not currently have any pending items from Cadiz to consider and none are planned for the foreseeable future,' Metropolitan spokesperson Rebecca Kimitch said by email. The last time the board reviewed anything from Cadiz was in 2002, when it voted to reject the project, she said. But, amid high-stakes Colorado River negotiations, it might be hard for Metropolitan to say no to a request that could help ease the path to a deal for another state. Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's California Climate newsletter.
