Analysis Of Terry Tempest Williams The Clan Of One-Breasted Women

Another instance of the government neglecting us and our complaints over our health concerns by these chemicals was when it came to nuclear and atomic testing in Utah and Nevada in the 1950s. Terry Tempest Williams wrote the passage “The Clan of One-Breasted Women” and explained how the government was funding these tests to be had in the desert and did not once think about the consequences that the explosions would have on nearby residents and wildlife. The Nuclear testing in Nevada brought with it cancers upon residents who were affected by the contamination brought by winds and fallout, but at this time in history the country was very patriotic in self defence as the Korean War and the Cold War were happening in different parts of the world

and if you were against nuclear testing than you were deemed a communist (1093). How did the government respond to court cases against the testing?

They ignored the pleas of the contaminated residents and as Williams said about our justice system, “To our court system it does not matter whether the United States government was irresponsible, whether it lied to its citizens, or even that citizens died from the fallout of nuclear testing. What matters is that our government is immune: ‘The King can do no wrong’ (1094). Williams explains her experience with the effects of nuclear testing near her home on her family, which led to her mother, grandmother, six aunts, and herself to have breast cancer leaving six of them dead (1091). What Williams wants her audience to realize is that the government's irrational decisions with these powerful chemicals can affect anyone of us and we may never get our justice because of the power they have over

us.
Examples of opposition towards the government regarding chemical spraying can be seen in our own state of California, which is known for its agriculture.

In an article written by Daryl Landy called “The Constitutional Implications of Government Pesticide Spraying: The Case for Limited Judicial Intervention and an Intermediate standard of Review” the author explained the role the government had in the Northern California infestation of apple maggot fruit fly in the summer of 1993. When the issue became public only a few requirements were needed for the spraying to commence and finally “In 1984, the State legislature authorized the CDFA to administer a maggot eradication program where it could show that eradication was both necessary and feasible. Within months the CDFA made the required showings, and the legislature funded the eradication project” (222). The green light was given to officials after they provided enough evidence that could have been exaggerated so the situation looked more serious than it was so the spraying could begin. After a conference was held informing residents of their plan, protests against the chemical spraying formed quickly and a action was filed against the California Department of Food and Agriculture. They argued that the chemical they were using, Imidan, was not investigated enough for the health risk it could cause, the CDFA did not provide a notice of the spraying, and the CDFA did not review the requirements of the California Environmental

Quality Act (222). The protest was appealed and the spraying continued even with all the objection put against it by residents (224). The protesters felt cheated and responded by expressing how they were being objected their rights by a higher power.
The United States of America where agriculture is a very highly sought out market for citizens all over the country, with such different climates in different regions we can provide the same vegetation all year round. What consequences do we receive in exchange for this luxury? Health risk and destruction of the land we live on is what is happening every time a pesticide spray is used at home or on agriculture in this country. As much as we are more aware now than people were when these chemicals were first brought to the market in the 1950s, government funded projects continue to be used at an alarming rate. Our protest against these chemicals seemed to be shut down because of how much power the officials have over us. They try to justify their acts by explaining how the pests or plant they want to kill is harmful to us and how much better our lives would be without them, but is it really worth getting rid of them if we're just killing ourselves in the process? These sprays have been studied and have been announced to be dangerous because of the symptoms we may receive from them that lead to illnesses and even death. Although these chemicals do their job to kill what their target is, the victory is short lived because the living organisms become adapted to the chemicals and the only ones becoming contaminated are ourselves. Residents in Nevada have had their lives changed because of the contamination that was first introduced in the 50s and are still dealing with the consequences today because of the government's insecurity in warfare. If contamination is at such a high at this point in history, what do our futures in this planet look like?