Obviously you don't have to "start experimenting on children". One can survey parents on whether or not they used microwaves, plastic containers, or not, look at the health of the children concerned in later years, and then work from that data.
I think this is actually evidence of what the poster above is referring to - the long-term effects of Oppenheimer being unfairly discredited. Fermi has streets, schools and subway stations named after him all over Italy. Oppenheimer doesn't (at least not to anywhere near the same extent), even in the US, because during the period when this might most likely have happened, towards the end of his life and shortly after his death, he was still widely regarded as being a traitor.
I don't think you studied either Klaus Fuchs or the Rosenbergs in much detail then. Whatever the merits of their actions or the cases against them, they were certainly dedicated Communists who did their best for a cause they believed in fervently.
Your evidence is a movie whose raison d'etre is to elucidate the viewpoints of an American citizen and military leader who is heavily implicated in this decision and in other American war crimes, and even that document does not support your point (McNamara openly admits that US bombing of Japanese population centers was a war crime.)
I'm not sure I would class that as 'heavily under dispute'.
It's not clear what point you are trying to respond to. I am aware that McNamara discusses the firebombing of Japanese cities cities as a warcrime. The main point of the movie is asking the question if nuking two cities was a lesser evil than continuing to try to force Japan into submission by continuing the campaign. The movie is not presented as evidence of anything: it was presented explicitly to provide the alternative viewpoint to the post I replied to.
Certainly the death toll would have been higher without the two bombs. By what measure would you claim that there is no dispute that Japan was "militarily crippled"? There is difference between losing a war and being unable to mount a punishing defense.
Hard to argue that Einstein is not overrated when he is literally the archetype of 'genius scientist' for most people in the world. But in his annus mirabilis Einstein literally made world-tier steps forward in 3 huge areas of physics simultaneously. Any of these in isolation would have ensured his immortality. This is either the single most important short productive period of scientific work of anyone, ever, or holds that accolade in tie with Newton's plague year.
Of course, his later years did not live up to this stellar record - he both made mistakes and was less productive. But how could they?
Joseph Heller was challenged by a journalist in later years that "he hadn't written anything as good as Catch-22 recently". He replied "No. But who has?"
There are (in that era) no other geniuses 'like' Einstein or von Neumann.
Einstein was probably the most visionary scientist of the whole century at making huge steps forward in several key areas. John von Neumann made landmark achievements across pure maths, physics, engineering, computer science and economics.
To say that a basketball player is not comparable to Larry Bird or to Michael Jordan is no disparagement.
Larry Bird is probably the real Einstein equivalent because he was great as a college player, NBA player, head coach, and team executive. Oppenheimer may not have been the genius of Einstein or von Neumann, but there's no telling that either of those guys would have had the ability to drive the kind of program management results that Oppenheimer did, right? Competence and capability span domains, it's not always productive to isolate one's capability within a single "vertical" of achievement.
Yes, BT was divided into two business units to enable this process. They unlawfully colluded with each other in order to stop any reseller from being able to charge less than the BT retail offering. Result: terrible infrastructure investment and no competition.
There were quite a few small energy co-operatives in the UK, mainly set up by municipalities.
When wholesale energy prices spiked last year, followed by a cap being applied to the prices that they could charge, they weren't hedged and several ended up going bankrupt.
Actually, the very widely replicated experience of most challenger utilities is that the entrenched utility will stop you, sometimes in collusion with the government or municipalities. Try getting permits to dig up the road to put your competing pipes alongside the current monopolists.
In Britain, British Telecom spent around 20 years making it impossible for other players to supply an internet service to consumers. They used various anti-competitive practices and had very good capture of the largely toothless regulator OfCom. This is all documented.
