Re: So what exactly do scientists know about global warming?

John Beardmore <wookie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <GIGOKuEwPa4DFw22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Oz
<Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
John Beardmore <wookie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

This being the case, you can hardly blame the public for regarding
radioactive
material as a rather insidious threat, and given that, a certain
amount of dread
risk is inevitable.

I'm not sure that's true. The public may have all sorts of paranoias but
excessive fear of radioactivity doesn't seem to be one of them.

Not sure that this explains the support for and success of the anti
nuclear movement very well, though the association with weapons
complicates it all.

I think Oz is ... imprecise. The public do have what might be termed an
excessive fear of radioactivity 'out there', ie out in the environment
where they live. Radioactivity in medicine and so forth is controlled,
contained, relatively friendly stuff in small amounts and the public is
led to believe someone knows where and what it's doing at all times.
(When they discover they've been misled and some has 'gone missing',
that's proof of radioactivity's perfidy.) Nuclear plants leak
'radioactivity' by their very nature, even if only at low levels, and it
travels considerable distances to places where it might not be expected.
You can't see it or smell it -- someone visiting that beach near
Dounreay could have set out an afternoon picnic on top of plutonium
particles without ever knowing they'd done so, or that they'd increased
their risk of developing cancer as a result. The level of risk is less
important than the fact that they have no control over the exposure.
Another part of the problem is the publicity radiation receives: it
maims and it kills, and its effects may last more than one generation.
That last absolutely terrifies some people, that their children may
suffer because of something they themselves could do nothing about.
Then, again, just look at how 'nuclear' things have been portrayed in
the past, from Mme Curie's death through various mouth cancers suffered
by the women painting watch dials, The Bomb, Chernobyl, not to mention
all the comic book and movie characters warped or destroyed by their
exposure to 'radiation'. Why be surprised that people are afraid of it?
After all, it *is* dangerous.

regards
sarah

--
Think of it as evolution in action.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So what exactly do scientists know about global warming?
    ... material as a rather insidious threat, and given that, a certain amount of dread ... risk is inevitable. ... excessive fear of radioactivity doesn't seem to be one of them. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Tilting At Windmills
    ... All this waste can be stored on site for decades in ... Spent nuclear fuel loses around 60% of it's level of radioactivity in ... Imagine if one is using coal, gas, oil, biomass or geothermal energy & ... gets a significant amount of its energy from nuclear. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
    ... >>> unclassified documents show that the total amount of radioactivity ... >>> when you are talking about stuff whose halflife measures in decades at ... One with an alpha emitter, one with a beta, one with a gamma and one with a ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
    ... >> unclassified documents show that the total amount of radioactivity ... >> when you are talking about stuff whose halflife measures in decades at ... If Isotope1 and Isotope2 both give off equal amounts of radioactivity ...
    (sci.space.policy)