Radiophobia

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Fukushima)
(Causes)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
==Causes==
 
==Causes==
 
Concerns about nuclear energy are rooted in several phenomena:
 
Concerns about nuclear energy are rooted in several phenomena:
* Cold War culture created a culture of fear around nuclear weapons, and the use of nuclear weapons at [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasakirevealed them to be supremely destructive and deadly. Given their horrific effects, parallels were drawn between [[nuclear war]] and prophecies about the end of the world found in many religious traditions, such as [[Armageddon]]. Associations with nuclear weapons were then extended to all other nuclear technologies.
+
* Cold War culture created a culture of fear around nuclear weapons, and the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki revealed their supremely destructive powers. Given their horrific effects, parallels were drawn between [[nuclear war]] and prophecies about the end of the world found in many religious traditions, such as [[Armageddon]]. Associations with nuclear weapons were then extended to all other nuclear technologies.
 
* Efforts of the nuclear disarmament movement, and later the [[anti-nuclear movement]].
 
* Efforts of the nuclear disarmament movement, and later the [[anti-nuclear movement]].
 
* Very poor understanding of radiation phenomena and the health effects of radiation by the general public.
 
* Very poor understanding of radiation phenomena and the health effects of radiation by the general public.

Revision as of 00:29, 3 November 2011

Template:Copper

The mightiest
of them all

Nuclear energy

Icon nuclear.svg
Radioactive pages

The use of nuclear technologies has generated widespread public concern, some of it valid, some of it misplaced, about the potential effects of ionizing radiation. While advocates of nuclear energy argue that these concerns lead to unrealistic perceptions of risk posed by nuclear technologies, opponents of nuclear power point to the fact that the nuclear industry's assurances often rely on the assumption that their technologies always work the way that they are meant to and that accidents will be managed in a textbook manner. [1]

Contents

Causes

Concerns about nuclear energy are rooted in several phenomena:

  • Cold War culture created a culture of fear around nuclear weapons, and the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki revealed their supremely destructive powers. Given their horrific effects, parallels were drawn between nuclear war and prophecies about the end of the world found in many religious traditions, such as Armageddon. Associations with nuclear weapons were then extended to all other nuclear technologies.
  • Efforts of the nuclear disarmament movement, and later the anti-nuclear movement.
  • Very poor understanding of radiation phenomena and the health effects of radiation by the general public.
  • Some nuclear apologists allege that over-conservatism and failure to present the risks posed by radiation in proper perspective by regulatory bodies dealing with radiation protection have led to an exaggerated sense of the risks associated with nuclear technologies.[2]
  • Suppression of contrary evidence by Hermann Muller, originator of the now prevalent linear no-threshold hypothesis, which states that risk is stricty proportional to dose and no level of radiation is completely free from risk.[3]

Effects

The most obvious effect of concern over the effects of radiation an intense questioning of the risks associated with nuclear technology, including nuclear power, medical imaging, nuclear medicine, and food irradiation. This has led some people to advocate alternatives which nuclear advocates argue are more costly, less effective or more environmentally destructive.

Another category of effects is associated with nuclear accidents. Given the potentially catastrophic effects of a nuclear accident, when one occurs it is guaranteed to be front-page news, no matter its real impact. .[4][5] When a genuinely severe accident happens, the adverse effects of released radiation are far outstripped by the adverse effects of radiation hysteria (see below).

Quite ironically, fear of the effects of radiation is what makes dirty bombs a viable terrorist weapon. While the damage from such a device might not be much greater than from the conventional explosive alone, the fear of radiation among the public makes them very useful for disruption.[6]

Specific examples

Chernobyl

The pattern of the results of a nuclear accident being amplified far beyond its direct effects by hysteric reactions of the population is well documented in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, thyroid cancer (an easily-treatable cancer, if you ever want to have cancer, like invasive surgery, or simply enjoy just taking pills to make up for your missing thyroid) increased, in the surrounding population while other where radiation-related sicknesses did not. No less harmful conditions including psychological and psychosomatic disorders such as anxiety, stress, depression, alcoholism, suicide and cardiovascular diseases increased sharply.[7]

Fukushima

Widespread public concern occurred after the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which severely damaged a nuclear power plant. The nuclear crisis received 51% of all news coverage about the disaster[5] after killing five people, none of them because of radiation.[8] Other events, such as a refinery fire,[9] a dam collapse which actually killed some people[10] and the general devastation and 30 000 dead and missing from the earthquake and tsunami, did not receive as much attention. In the U.S., fake maps of fallout supposedly caused by the accident, which showed the west coast as receiving lethal doses of radiation, spread virally and resulted in a brief panic.[11] In mainland China, there was a run on iodized salt, resulting from the mistaken belief that the iodine in the salt will have the same effect as thyroid tablets.[12] In India, a civilian was killed and 20 were injured after a protest near the planned Jaitapur nuclear plant intensified and turned violent after news of the accident in Japan.[13]

The German decision to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima accident is the prime example of public concern over the potentially harmful outcomes of nuclear accidents driving national policy. The switch to other forms of energy is expected to cost around $340 billion over 10 years in required investments alone[14] (which represents over 1% of German GDP), will increase carbon emissions and electricity prices, and might endanger the shift away from coal power in Europe.[15]

Radiation exposure as an argument against technologies

Concerns about nuclear radiation often come into play in debates over technologies where radiation is not really an important concern. This might happen in two different ways. First, a minuscule radiation dose resulting from some activity, or the mere association with something radioactive, is used to shore up an argument against it. Second, an argument against an activity which is genuinely harmful or undesirable is strengthened by highlighting the radiation exposure resulting from it, which is in fact not significant; this is often done because the genuine arguments are not mobilizing enough.[citation needed]

The first type of argument is notorious in attacks on food irradiation, which does not result in any extra dose to the consumer.[16]

Backscatter X-ray scanners

There was a wave of opposition to backscatter X-ray scanners used on airports on the basis of the radiation exposure caused by them and its health effects.[17] In reality, the dose is completely insignificant even for frequent travelers, and far lower than the dose received during the flight itself.[18] What should drive the opposition is the unreasonable invasion of privacy and the overall paranoia and security theater of air travel. However, these genuine arguments are apparently too abstract.

Radioactive tobacco

Quit smoking groups sometimes comment about radiation doses received from smoking.[19] While it does seem that radiation may be an important factor in lung cancer resulting from smoking,[20] this is still a spurious argument of the second kind: whether cancer is caused by radioactive or chemical carcinogens is not very relevant. The causal link between smoking and lung cancer is what matters.

Misunderstandings

The nuclear magnetic resonance technique, widely used in chemical analysis, was further developed as an imaging technique for diagnostic medicine in the 1970s. However, the "nuclear" part of the name (which is still common in chemistry) is dropped for medical applications, partially because MRI is a little easier than NMRI, but not least because patients were afraid of the word "nuclear" in the procedure's name.[21] MRI procedures do not result in any radiation exposure.

Some things do not emit any ionizing radiation, but are discussed as if they did, probably due to confusion between the effects of different types of radiation (ionizing vs non-ionizing). This includes microwave ovens, wireless networking and cell phones.

See also

Footnotes

  1. http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
  2. http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/Realism/Rockwell04DecNN-RealismProject.pdf
  3. http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/136706.php
  4. Examples of reports about non-events: [1] [2] and the Vermont Yankee tritium leak e.g. [3]
  5. 5.0 5.1 Pew Research Center: Most Are Attentive to News About Disaster in Japan
  6. NRC: Backgrounder on Dirty Bombs
  7. http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/2-health-effects-chernobyl.htm#0
  8. Asian Correspondent: The Fukushima Death Toll
  9. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/121661/20110311/fire-chiba-prefecture-japan-earthquake-cosmo-oil-co-refinery-japan-atomic-power-co-tsunami.htm
  10. http://www.hydroworld.com/index/display/article-display/5036367493/articles/hrhrw/News-2/2011/03/dam-breaks_following.html
  11. snopes.com: Nuclear Fallout Map
  12. CNN: Chinese scramble to buy salt as radiation fears grow
  13. Christian Science Monitor: Japan's Fukushima crisis drives protests over world's largest nuclear plant in India
  14. http://www.thelocal.de/money/20110919-37687.html
  15. http://www.globe-net.com/articles/2011/june/3/german-nuclear-phase-out-ignites-push-for-coal,-gas/?sub=
  16. Iowa State University: Consumer Questions About Food Irradiation
  17. http://www.rense.com/general41/airporttravelerstoget.htm
  18. American College of Radiology: Statement on Airport Full-body Scanners and Radiation
  19. ACSA: Radioactive tobacco
  20. EPA: Radiation Protection: Tobacco Smoke
  21. Science Museum UK: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support