Talk:United States Atomic Energy Commission

Abolition of the AEC
I found a reference for the first sentence of the paragraph discussing the abolition of the AEC, "By 1974, the AEC’s regulatory programs had come under such strong attack that Congress decided to abolish AEC." I am having some trouble with the correct citation format, but the URL is http://rampac.energy.gov/docs/DOE%20PCH/PCP-09.pdf if someone else would be interested in adding it for that sentence. Thanks. Ichabod313 (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I cannot find a specific reference to this, my father was at the AEC during formation of ERDA. A very strong influence on that decision was that the AEC was the only government agency with experience working with the oil companies to increase domestic oil and gas production. This had been one of the key projects for the AEC's Plowshare program, which was developing civilian applications for atomic energy (reactors, nuclear excavation, and fracturing rock strata). The AEC was the perfect agency to lead the US in responding to the Arab Oil Embargo.Bdavy92960 (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
I reviewed this article as part of a class peer review. This article is very well researched and displays the information in an unbiased way. I think one of the strengths to this article is that the use of hyperlinks to other articles are abundant, and allow for easy further reading or research on specific subjects. The sections seem to all relate to the article and in doing so follow the outline of the lead section. With that said while there are strong points in the history section I think that it would be helpful to use some subheadings. Because you have it organized in a chronological way perhaps it would be useful to use dates as the subheadings. This would helpful to someone looking for quick information in a particular time period.

In addition I love the section on how the AEC played a role in expanding Arctic ecology. It is very useful and certainly pertains to the overall impact of the AEC but it may be better organized into a subheading or perhaps it’s own heading.

This article uses a multitude of of great resources but it may also be helpful to use reference names so that the resources section does not list the same source over and over.

Overall great job!

JessicaCmaguire (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)JessicaCmaguireJessicaCmaguire (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article is very well written and very informational; thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. First of all, I believe that the lead section is a strong point of this article. The lead section gives a great summary of the history of the AEC while not going into too much detail on any one matter. Although I thought the lead section was well done, I believe that in comparison to the article as a whole, the ecology part of the lead section was possibly too long and could be condensed.

Also, I like the organization and flow of this article. The AEC Chair section was convenient and easy to read, and the pictures were helpful and placed in the correct location. However, I do believe that the history section of the article is in need of subheadings. Subheadings would make it easier to find certain points in the history of the AEC, and it would improve the appearance of the article. Subheadings that I believe would make sense would be a “public opinion” subheading. This could explain the ecological problems you discuss.

By the nature of this article, I believe that it was wise to focus the article on the history of the AEC. Additionally, I thought the section on ecology was creative and useful, as many people may not know the effect the AEC had on the history of ecology. Finally, although I thought the history section was useful, I believe to balance the article further, the article could touch on the lasting impact of the AEC Hopefully this section would allow readers to see what the AEC meant to future generations.

The AEC was obviously a controversial commission as most subjects dealing with nuclear energy. I believe that this article does an excellent job of presenting the facts of the AEC without favoring any view – the ecology aspect of the article highlights important positive aspects. However, I do question the neutrality of the sections discussing experiments done by the AEC. Did any good come of the experiments conducted? If so, it would improve the neutrality of the article if these were highlighted.

The references used for this article are high quality. Also, the interspersed use of different articles throughout each section improves the quality of this article. I noticed, however, that there are several important facts that “need citations”; this would further improve the quality of the article.

Overall this is a very well done article. Great work. Gtn001 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
This is a very strong, well-researched article. The lead-in section provides a clear overview of the article with important, basic information on the AEC. Although the lead-in section is includes many needed details, I thought it could be condensed a little more. For example, I think it could be shortened by getting rid of a few things, such as the examples of the AEC's techniques used for ecological research. Although definitely needed for the article, I think this could be saved for a later section.

The structure of the article is well-organized and logical. The article describes important, interesting details about the AEC's history and its relationship with ecology and other sciences. However, these sections are both fairly long, and could maybe be broken up into subsections so that readers can more easily find something specific they may be looking for. The coverage of the article is well-balanced between these two main sections, but could maybe use more detail in the Reports section. I wonder if it might be possible to give some sort of explanation or examples of what the AEC's reports were about. Overall, though, the structure and content of the article is executed very well.

The content of the article also appears to be neutral. I could not detect any biases, as the author discusses both good aspects of the AEC and the work the organization did, as well as criticisms and controversies surrounding the agency. The article also has a long list of sources, which appear to be reliable. There are a number of various publications listed as well as government websites which gives details into the AEC and its work. Great job with your research and writing!! Ashleyweir (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment
The United States' Atomic Energy Act of 1946 was responsible for creating the Atomic Energy Commission.

The Atomic Energy Commission was specifically established to maintain civilian government control over the field of atomic research and development. During the early Cold War Years, the Commission focused on designing and producing nuclear weapons and developing nuclear reactors for naval propulsion. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ended exclusive government use of the atom and began the growth of the commercial nuclear power industry, giving the Atomic Energy Commission authority to regulate the new industry.

In response to changing needs in the mid 1970's, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 created two new agencies: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to regulate the nuclear power industry and the Energy Research and Development Administration to manage the nuclear weapon, naval reactor, and energy development programs.

May-Johnson Bill
Probably the May-Johnson bill or May-Johnson Bill, precursor to the McMahon Act, deserves attention in this article. Our Andrew J. May and Edwin C. Johnson bios don't mention it either. History Detectives did a segment on the opposition to the M-J B, in the new episode aired this week. "I'm curious whether those who created the document in the segment were closely connected with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists", as they'd say on the show. --Jerzy•t 02:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Project Chariot
I think this article should at least mention project chariot. 72.42.134.253 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

AEC Flagship
Should be mention of the United States claiming all radioactive material on or in the entire World as its own and that the AEC's flagship was to own it all, including all of the irradiated People on Earth due to the many nuclear detonations that were or would be accomplished. Isn't it nice being their slave People?216.215.40.65 (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Some Suggestions for this article !
As I read the article, I was looking for at least some information about where is this located. There is no information about it in the lead section of this article. I think the article does a good job in summarizing the key points that described in this article. Although the structure is clear in this article, I should say that history has given more importance which make the article little imbalanced. I think the article is one sided because it only talks about. I personally think that article was biased, but disposal and storage of nuclear waste remains could have been an important issue to talk about in this article. In addition to that, I was expecting to see some more pictures about the actual infrastructure of the commission could added more substance to the article. There are 7 to 8 places where references are lacking ! Abue.chowdhury (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Resources for Future Improvements
Bibliography for Future Research

Allardice, Corbin, and Edward R. Trapnell. The Atomic Energy Commission. New York: Praeger, 1974.

Ford, Daniel F.. The Cult of the Atom: The Secret Papers of the Atomic Energy Commission. University of California: Simon & Schuster, 1982.

Hewlett, Richard G., and Oscar E. Anderson. A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1962.

Hacker, Barton C.. Elements of Controversy: The Atomic Energy Commission and Radiation Safety in Nuclear Weapons Testing, 1947-1974. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994.

Hewlett, Richard G., and Jack M. Holl. Atoms for Peace and War, 1953-1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Matchette, Robert B.. "Records of the Atomic Energy Commission [AEC]." National Archives and Records Administration. http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/326.html (accessed February 23, 2014).

Seaborg, Glenn Theodore, and Benjamin S. Loeb. The Atomic Energy Commission under Nixon: adjusting to troubled times. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993.

University of Wisconsin Press. "Atomic Energy Commission." International Organization 1.1 (1947): 99-102. Print.

Wolfe, John N.. "National Agency Programs and Support of Arctic Biology in the United States: Atomic Energy Commission." BioScience 14, no. 5 (1964): 22-25.

Srk017 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead Section Outline
The United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was an agency of the United States government established after World War II by Congress to foster and control the peace time development of atomic science and technology. President Harry S. Truman signed the McMahon/Atomic Energy Act on August 1, 1946, transferring the control of atomic energy from military to civilian hands, effective from January 1, 1947. Public Law 585, 79th Congress. This shift gave the first members of the AEC complete control of the plants, laboratories, equipment, and personnel assembled during the war to produce the atomic bomb. (Hewlett and Anderson)

During its’ initial establishment and subsequent operationalization, the AEC played a key role in the institutional development of Ecosystem ecology. Specifically, it provided crucial financial resources, allowing for ecological research to take place. (Hagen) Perhaps even more importantly, it enabled ecologists with a wide range of groundbreaking techniques for the completion of their research. One of these techniques involved the use of radiation, namely in ecological dating and to study the effects of stresses on the environment. (Hagen) In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the AEC also approved funding for numerous bio-environmental projects in the Arctic and near-Arctic. These projects were designed to examine the effects of nuclear energy upon the environment and were a part of the Commission’s attempt at creating peaceful applications of atomic energy. (Wolfe)

An increasing number of critics during the 1960s charged that the AEC's regulations were insufficiently rigorous in several important areas, including radiation protection standards, nuclear reactor safety, plant siting, and environmental protection. By 1974, the AEC's regulatory programs had come under such strong attack that Congress decided to abolish the agency. The agency was abolished by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which assigned its functions to two new agencies: the Energy Research and Development Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On August 4, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed into law The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, which created the Department of Energy. The new agency assumed the responsibilities of the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Federal Power Commission, and programs of various other agencies.

Srk017 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph indicates what I will be most focusing on adding to the article in the future. While I will be adding some information about the history of the Commission and some of its' lasting impacts, I will mainly be focusing on the AEC in regard to how it further aided the development of ecology.

Some other comments
Hello User: Srk017! Thank you for your work in expanding this article, and especially the detail of the AEC's relationship with ecology and other sciences. This is a wonderful and much needed addition. You have received some comments from your peers on structure and organization, and I think those are worth thinking about and responding to. I also think that if you title the section "Ecology and the other sciences" it would be helpful to state clearly what other sciences the AEC most impacted or had close relationships with. I also wanted to ask about some of the other sources you list in your bibliography, but which don't seem to appear here. First, you make very good use of Hagen's Entangled Bank and (as other reviewers mention) do a nice job using internal links for major ecologists like Odum and sites like the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Now having just read the article, I can't recall if you detail the new technique of isotope tracing that was a major development from the AEC for ecosystem ecology, or if you also detail the ways the AEC became embroiled with Environmental Impact Statements through nuclear power plant siting. Both of these issues would be good to expand upon. I also notice that Richard Hewlett's work was cited here in the article, but you have mentioned other sources of his that are not--his 1962 book A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and his 1989 book with Jack Holl Atoms for Peace and War, 1953-1961 Did you find those books useful for adding information to the history section? Keep up the good work! --Enstandrew (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Human Experimentation
Just wondering about the section on radiation experiments conducted on newborns, foetuses and towns? It appears to all be sourced from a single publication by Andrew Goliszek, which seems to have received criticism for a lack of supporting evidence and citations (at least re:radiation experimentation). It smacks of conspiracy theory hubris, and I wonder if the section should be included without any extra sources.14.201.115.190 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's just a sentence, not a section, but agree that if the comments in the book are disputed we should know about it. Can you cite specific criticisms? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"History"…
Weird. A History section where the first two paragraphs mention not a _single_ actual date. Not even a year. WP *is* a joke. (Feel free to delete, you will anyway) --jae (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, writen by those with PR intentions, most of the time ...it's hard to know where to begin. People just want notable facts, not opinions.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Confusing reference
Reference #8 (in the lede, after "peaceful applications of atomic energy") links to two different documents. Only the second matches the author/title/date given. Has the first link been added in error? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Disputed -- many errors
This article contains a number of important errors in it. At some point I will try to contribute to rewriting it, but there is one that really needs to be flagged:


 * Within the AEC, high-level scientific and technical advice was provided by the General Advisory Committee, originally headed by J. Robert Oppenheimer. In its early years, the General Advisory Committee (GAC) made a number of controversial decisions, notably its decision against building the hydrogen bomb (H-bomb), announced in 1949. As a result, U.S. Senator Brien McMahon prompted the decision not to reappoint J. Robert Oppenheimer to the GAC when his six-year statutory term expired in 1952. David Lilienthal, the AEC chairman, agreed with Oppenheimer, and he also opposed "a crash program to build the hydrogen bomb ahead of any other nation". Then President Truman asked Lilienthal to leave the AEC, and he did so on February 15, 1950. Lilienthal had been one of the original members of the AEC who granted Dr. Oppenheimer nuclear security clearances in 1947. With Oppenheimer and Lilienthal removed, President Truman announced his decision to develop and produce the hydrogen bomb.

I think calling what the GAC provided as "advice" sort of misses its role in the AEC system. The GAC was used by the AEC to chart out policy decisions on a wide variety of topics. Its main "controversial" decision was about the H-bomb, and it was not "announced" (it was secret). There were no decision not to reappointed Oppenheimer; he himself decided to resign (there was certainly bad blood, but laying that all on McMahon is wrong). Lilienthal was not asked by Truman to leave the AEC; he himself resigned out of other frustrations (not just the H-bomb, but lots of things). And it is pretty irrelevant to single Lilienthal out (of the entire AEC!) for granting Oppenheimer a clearance. Oppenheimer was still chair of the GAC and Lilienthal was still AEC Chairman when Truman announced the H-bomb development.

There are lots of other errors in the History section. In general it should be totally rewritten. A better approach, to my mind, would be a "prehistory" of the AEC (from the Bush, Conant, and Royall ideas through the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 as enacted into law), and then something that went through each of the Chairs that called out both the significant issues (like the H-bomb debate, the two-laboratory question, Atoms for Peace and civilian power, the relationship with the military), and then something on why it was dissolved. The current version is bizarre and scattershot, and relies WAY too much on Nichols, who was not a historian but was in fact an enemy of the AEC. (Hewlett is a much better source.) --NuclearSecrets (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)