Talk:Radiophobia

	This Nuclear energy related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

not all people who oppose nuclear energy are irrational

One would think that anyone opposing nuclear energy is a quack. This is hardly the case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Information_and_Resource_Service

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Nuclear_power

Rationalwiki should not be a platform for one view or another, especially if scientists are divided. Many scientists throughout history have expressed doubts about the wisdom of nuclear power. 88.28.166.88 (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hanford Tests

I believe a great deal of the current fear of radiation stemmed from the Hanford tests during the Cold War when a large volume of radioactive Iodine was secretly (and deliberately) released into Washington State and the surroundings got a very large dose, tens of thousands of times higher than well-publicised disasters like Three Mile Island.

The government in it's wisdom then claimed the dosing was small - so if you received a large dose and get sick, but were told it was a small dose - what other conclusion could you have drawn, other than that small doses of radiation are harmful?

You can read more about it here - the tests are widely unknown today, which is interesting given that a number of nuclear engineers I am friends with believe that this is where a great deal of the radiophobia stems from (note; I'm a biochemist, my best friend is a nuclear chemist and as a result my group of friends has several nuclear engineers - which technically makes this an anecdotal assertion - but from what they've told me it would seem a lot of people dealing regularly with radiation know of the hanford tests and blame them for the fear of radiation).

Because of the weight many specialists dealing with radiation (at least those I have spoken to) put quite a lot of blame on the hanford tests as one of the foundations of radiophobia, it may be worth including a section on the subject in the article Cprobertson1 (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I wouldn't be the best person to write the section because what you've just said is all I know on the subject. Christopher (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Another source of phobia

Has this lurid pizza been brought into the discussion? How many rolls of aluminium foil are needed to counter it? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Uranium glass

Should there be something on Uranium glass - [1] does seem to be a good enough reason not to get 'too involved' with the stuff. Anna Livia (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Validity of CT scan comparison?

Is it valid to be comparing the ingestion of radioactive isotopes (from Fukushima fall-out, for instance) to a CT scan? It's is my understanding the ingestion of radioactive isotopes can cause enduring long-term exposure to radiation, from within the body itself. What's more, these isotopes can accumulate in the body, so ingesting a seemingly insignificant amount many times over, can result in the body containing a significant amount over time. Some isotopes can remain in the body for many decades. This is detailed here [2]. How is it a legitimate argument to compare that phenomenon with a one-off exposure to radiation via an external source such as a CT scan? ^{— Unsigned, by: 115.189.135.37 / talk}

Because it's all radiation. So is sunlight. So spouting paranoid nonsense is silly when exposed to the scale of the radiation spectrum. One might as well be afraid of gravity. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There may be a little bit of equivocation going on.

Firstly there are things which are radioactive and which produce radiation. This might be electromatic or particulate. If it's particle radiation - it depends a lot on the particle. But it's probably best not to ingest such things unless it's for a clear medical reason.

If it's electromagnetic radiation it depends on the energy which will mean that it's ionizing or non-ionizing. If it's ionizing then you certainly want to avoid it. If it's non-ionizing it's going to depend on the dose. We are surrounded by radiation of many types and the vast majority are either irrelevant or necessary for life. But - even then - the dose is going to be the poison.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Radios

Briefly mentioned on the Wikipedia page, about a century ago some people had a phobia towards radio broadcasting and the radio devices. My great grandmother was this way. I think it may have had a religious component, like she said something about there being demons in radios lulz. Wonder how widespread it was back then and if a section on this page can be made about it. The only sources on it that Wikipedia turned up were two really old newspaper articles. Chillpilled (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

From what I read somewhere there was a 19th overlap between the discovery of IR and UV and the concept of spiritualism - 'the dead' were operating at frequencies different to the living: [3] would be a suitable starting point for this. Anna Livia (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

More recently, I've seen a few people online talking about computer internals secretly being "demonic sigils", computers being controlled by demons, etc... feels very similar. Religion-driven technophobia sort of, adapted to a newer age, with an earlier precedent. Chillpilled (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)