# data[].attributes.body
Long term impact of Nuclear warfare

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The exact death toll of the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not known. Reports say the total combined death toll of the cities is between 129,000-240,000 while others say it could be higher. What we do know, is that in August of 1945, the United States military dropped a new type of bomb on Hiroshima.

The atomic bomb used was called "Little Boy." Sixteen hours after the bomb was dropped, President Truman asked Japan to surrender. When they didn't agree, the United States dropped another atomic bomb, this time on Nagasaki. The second bombing occurred just three days after the bombing of Hiroshima.

About half of the deaths occurred the first day when the bombs were detonated. The atomic bombs were detonated in the sky, a little over 1,500 feet above the ground. This allowed for optimal destruction. The remaining deaths occurred over the next few months, and years. Many of these lives were taken due to burns, radiation, and cancer.

The long-term effects of the bombings are something that has been studied time and time again. In 1945, no one really knew how it would affect the people or the environment. Many expected the cities to become nuclear wastelands, something you might see in a video game or a movie. This was not so, but the people and their future generations did suffer. Here are several of the long term effects, caused by the atomic bombings on the two cities.

Leukemia Increased

Over the next few years, the cities would see a spike in leukemia. This was the most deadly long-term side effect. The spike occurred around two years after the bombing and hit its peak around 1950. It has been estimated that those involved in the blast had a 46 percent chance of getting leukemia. Other types of cancer did see a spike in the amount of diagnosis, it just didn't occur until around 1955.

Other cancers that saw an increase were thyroid cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer. Women were more likely to developed thyroid cancer, which was diagnosed by doing an autopsy. The first case of thyroid cancer in regards to the blast wasn't reported until 1957. Lung cancer was linked to the bombings in the early 1950s, and in a 1972 survey, almost 3,800 people (of 10,412) who had died from the blast or related to the blast, were found to have developed lung cancers.

Lastly, there was an increase in breast cancer. Women aged 22-30 were at a higher risk of getting breast cancer if they were exposed to more than 100 rads. It was believed that those exposed to radiation were three times as likely to develop breast cancer, than someone who wasn't exposed to radiation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Lasting Effects of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The exact death toll of the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not known. Reports say the total combined death toll of the cities is between 129,000-240,000 while others say it could be higher. What we do know, is that in August of 1945, the United States military dropped a new type of bomb on Hiroshima.

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear weapon as a deterrent information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Parliament is set to vote next week on whether or not to push ahead with the building of four submarines which will replace the existing Trident nuclear deterrent.

This is part of a process which has been ongoing since 2007 when the government, supported by a vote in parliament, began a programme to update and maintain the UK's nuclear weapons beyond the early 2030s.
But how much will replacing Trident cost?
Replacing the current class of nuclear submarines is expected to cost £31 billion. Another £10 billion has been put aside to cover any extra costs or spending over the estimate.

So far in the development of the Trident replacement the government has allocated or spent around £4.8 billion of its budget.

That's just for new submarines. There are several other costs linked to Trident.

Extending the life of the current Trident missiles into the early 2060s will cost around £250 million.

Keeping the current Trident submarines in operation until 2028, four years longer than planned, is also expected to cost between £1.2 and £1.4 billion. The House of Commons Library says that savings from the Submarine Enterprise Performance Programme are expected to make up for some of that.

Any other costs from a delay in introducing Trident will come out of the existing budget for its running costs.
What is the cost of running Trident day to day?
The Ministry of Defence's budget for 2016/17 is a planned £35 billion, increasing every year to 2020/21 when it is estimated to be almost £40 billion.

The annual operating costs of Trident are expected to be around 5% to 6% of this every year, or around £2 billion. That's about 1% of government spending on social security and tax credits in 2015/16, or the amount spent on the NHS every week.
How much has Trident cost in the past?
In 1998 the Strategic Defence Review estimated that the costs of buying Trident originally had been £12.52 billion. In 2015/2016 prices this is around £18.35 billion.

Once the system began to be used in 1994, it cost between 3% and 4.5% of the annual defence budget to run. It increased to between 5% and 6% in 2005-06 and has remained at this level ever since.
What would scrapping Trident cost?
The UK's nuclear deterrent is controversial and some have suggested scaling it back or scrapping it altogether.

This would also cost money. The Ministry of Defence has estimated that nuclear decommissioning would cost around £4 billion over several years.

However, the House of Commons Library points out that these costs include decommissioning the Navy's seven nuclear-powered submarines and it is unclear if this included the four submarines which carry ballistic missiles. It has been suggested that decommissioning the Trident submarines will be covered within the existing operating budget.

Although renewing Trident has been the policy of the current and all previous governments, a review was published in 2013 which looked at alternative options, assuming the UK keeps some form of deterrent. These options included moving Trident from submarines to ships or aircraft, using bombs instead of missiles, and only having the nuclear deterrent available at certain times, rather than now when it is constantly ready.

This review found that no alternative could be operational before 2035 at the earliest, and projected that 2040 was more likely. This would mean that to some extent the current Trident replacement plans would need to be continued until then if the UK were to keep its nuclear deterrent. The options considered in the review were also projected to cost anywhere from £20 to £30 billion, in current values, across their life span.

Isn't it nice to have the whole picture?

We rely on your donations to continue and grow our factchecking efforts - to help us maintain our independence we need 1000 donors to give £10 a month. We are currently at 502 - please help Full Fact grow.

By Claire Milne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Parliament is set to vote next week on whether or not to push ahead with the building of four submarines which will replace the existing Trident nuclear deterrent. This is part of a process which has been ongoing since 2007 when the government, supported by a vote in parliament, began a programme to update and maintain the UK's nuclear weapons beyond the early 2030s.

# data[].attributes.body
Animal research and Utilitarianism

# data[].attributes.body
Key notes on animal testing

# data[].attributes.body
Informatino sheet from class

# data[].attributes.body
Video: Support of medical testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fighting cancer: Animal research at Cambridge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal research plays an essential role in our understanding of health and disease and in the development of modern medicine and surgical techniques. As part of our commitment to openness, this film examines how mice are helping the fight against cancer.

# data[].attributes.body
Video: Against Animal testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Which data do we have about this research methodology? No raw images, only numbers in a video entirely made with motion graphics, designed to be watched from everyone, from children to adults. Enjoy it! © 2013 The Magic Collective.

# data[].attributes.body
BBC info on animal testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC - Ethics - Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Many of these experiments cause pain to the animals involved or reduce their quality of life in other ways.

# data[].attributes.body
PRRICED acronym

# data[].attributes.body
Supporting Worksheet

# data[].attributes.body
Lesson 2