******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
I generally agree with David's post in regards to the (mis-) use of anecdotal, sloppy, and/or statistically insignificant data in reaching unfounded conclusions, and which the popular science article that started this discussion appears to be guilty of. But now I'm switching gears.....
In the last paragraph of his post David inadvertantly changed the subject:
On 2017-12-06 22:24, DW via Marxism wrote:
...... Generally speaking the left is spooked by radiation phobia.
Well I plead guilty to that! Of course I wouldn't call it a "phobia" which implies a psychological problem, but valid "fear" and "avoidance" to ionizing radiation and radioisotopes. There are good reasons to do so! And it's understandable that people who distrust the governments and corporations are more likely to question reassurance offered by those evil entities.
The dangers due to radiation are a matter of scientific inquiry, not a left-right issue, but given dangers that become known then how you act on them are indeed political issues. Corporations that cause radiation exposure have every interest in reducing our "phobia" as do governments that stockpile nuclear weapons for use in war. But of course that doesn't mean that you should just believe every such claim which is punctuated by "They are keeping this fact secret because it threatens their profits...."
As our knowledge has advanced, there has been a steady increase in the appreciation of health risks caused by ionizing radiation. I haven't studied that history in detail, but I can cite some rather well-known examples to that effect. Over a hundred years ago when Marie Currie isolated and studied radium she certainly had little idea of what it was doing to her body, or she would have worn a lead apron that would have saved her life.
As soon as x-rays were recognized for their diagnostic value in identifying fractures, they also became used in fluoroscopy (which delivers a very high radiation dose because the x-ray source is kept on for many seconds or minutes) not just for medical purposes but even in shoe stores (with the x-ray beam pointed toward the person's head!) just so people could see how the bones in their feet fit in the shoes they were trying out!
Watches and clocks were widely manufactured with radium painted dials so that they could be seen in the dark. I'm sure people who bought those assumed that they wouldn't be allowed for sale if there were a danger, but they were wrong. The workers who hand-painted those dials suffered health effects at a high rate; the effect would have been much smaller (perhaps undetectable) among wearers of those watches but still probably amounted to many many avoidable deaths. I doubt most people would have accepted that risk, even if small, just so they could see the time without turning on the lights.
What amounts to experimentation on unwilling or naive human subjects took place when they marched US soldiers over the radioactive embers of the first nuclear bomb test, and then again on the Pacific islanders when they vaporized Bikini island with the first H-bomb. It may well be that the dangers were not unknown to those commissioning these tests, but they were certainly kept from the test subjects and the public as a whole. Either way this sordid history provides good reason to distrust the authorities responsible for providing false reassurance.
Generally through the 20th century there was a continual increase in the assessment of dangers from ionizing radiation, with the public always finding out too late what was not being told them by governments and corporations whose interests were served by avoiding alarm among the public. Meanwhile there has been greater care in reducing exposure, for instance by making x-ray film (or detectors used now) more sensitive so that exposures could be reduced, and more careful control of the x-rays through collimation and energy selection. But exposure to nuclear fallout (contamination) increased until popular pressure eventually pushed for the treaty banning atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. And then in the last 40 years there have been a number of accidents at nuclear power plants, resulting in various amounts of isotope leakage and consequent excess cancers (whether detectable or not). This was always after the power companies had sworn over and over that their plants were safe and that what later happened was "unthinkable." No wonder that this form of energy production became a target of leftists while supporters of the corporations were more willing to minimize the perceived danger.
Now a lot of what I'm saying is more historical concerning dangers that have now reduced. But I don't consider it a "phobia" for people to avoid radiation exposure. If I had a basement that was well sealed and which I was going to spend time in, I would definitely get it tested for radon (a radioactive gas that is very high in some localities). Before undergoing an x-ray or nuclear medicine procedure, I would want to know that the (usually small) risk was justified by the medical benefit of the diagnostics. I'm not talking about an occasional chest (etc.) x-ray which is a quite small exposure, but a CT scan involves turning on the x-ray for many minutes resulting in a body exposure 100's of times larger. According to a study cited in Wikipedia they have estimated that there is an extra cancer for every 1800 CT scans. I have no doubt that the medical benefit of this imaging technology greatly outweighs that risk, but I would absolutely advise against getting one just so you could look at a picture of your insides (which the insurance company wouldn't pay for so this is probably not an issue).
There are even places on earth where the natural background radiation is so high people should stay away. Probably most nuclear plants never have significant radiation leaks. But would you blame nearby residents for not trusting the business when they are told just that?
One problem is that although it's known that about 500 rads of radiation exposure will kill half the people, there is great uncertainty concerning the statistical effect of low radiation exposure, simply because it's difficult to run tests on humans as we've been discussing. So equally well-informed people can choose to ignore or overemphasize the danger without clearly being wrong. It may be (say) that the average person has a 1% lifetime risk over their lifetime of getting a cancer from unnatural sources of radiation: is that something they should avoid if it means not having electricity or never flying in an airplane? What if it just means we need a different form of electricity that is more expensive? Or that causes global warming that will threaten your grandchildren?
I don't think there can be clear answers to these questions, both due to lack of good knowledge concerning the danger levels and also due to individuals' priorities. But what leftists can see better than the average person, is that trusting the governments and corporations isn't a solution, which is why we are fertile ground for articles of the sort that started this thread.
I can't take a clear position on which is greater, the danger from nuclear power or from burning fossil fuels. I really think both are bad, but I will offer one final statistic. The total number of fatalities from solar power: zero.
- Jeff _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
