Talk:Radiophobia/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 12 December 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Citation needed!

Wouldn't it be easier to just remove all the oddly value-laden and/or unverifiable statements here? I don't see how citations for some of them could even be found (but if you can do it, be my guest). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I went a little too far in the effects section, which can be trimmed a bit until I think of something verifiable, but I think the over-reporting of minor accidents is absolutely self evident. You never get news about non-events from other industries like "production halted for 3 days at furniture factory after plumbing failure" or "no damage after earthquake at sewage treatment plant". I can find some links to reports of this type. --Tweenk (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(title was too long)

“”Many of them received news coverage disproportionate to their real impact...the adverse effects of released radiation are far outstripped by the adverse effects of radiation hysteria

The refs for that claim are simply anecdotes. Is there a study that measures how much media coverage nulcear accidents get, determines that that coverage is out of proportion, and concludes that its effects are adverse in comparison to anything? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 11:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've found this. It says 51% of the stories were about the nuclear plants, even though only 5 people died and it was an effect of the earthquake / tsunami rather than the nuclear accident. The second claim is supported by the material in the paragraph about Chernobyl: there were no radiation-related effects in the civilian population (e.g. people who were not emergency response workers) but there were serious psychological and psychosomatic effects resulting from stress. --Tweenk (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, type "accidents in power stations" into Google and pretty much every result seems to add in the world "nuclear". This is despite the fact that fatalities are much lower in nuclear plants - even when taking into account that they might not be as common - than in others. ^{...I'll cruise your xenomorph!} 19:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Deaths by terrawatthour and by source Nuclear comes in at 0.04 in contrast to coal which is in the hundreds. ^{...I'll plagiarize your impetus!} 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not exactly the same thing, but could be added in a new paragraph as another example. We should also evaluate merging with nuclear paranoia. --Tweenk (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Watering down

B-major, looks like you desperately want this article to be more in line with your worldview. "Concerns about nuclear radiation" does not adequately describe the attitude this article is about and you would know this if you cared to educate yourself a bit. --Tweenk (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Or at least read the refs which are already present, for that matter. --Tweenk (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Title

Can't just make this nuclear radiation?--^talk 00:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You can make it anything that suggests that nuclear apologists should be the only people whose opinions get represented. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If the "nuclear apologists" (the fact that you even use this silly moniker says a lot) are the ones who have better evidence, then they should be the ones represented. This wiki is not about equal representation of opinions. --Tweenk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about nuclear radiation itself, it's about how people think about it. The initial name was "radiation hysteria" and it accurately described the relevant mode of thinking, which has many parallels to vaccine hysteria. --Tweenk (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe when the article gets close to a finished form - after y'all hash out whatever disagreement you seem to have over tone - you can pick a better name?--^talk 01:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Fear of radiation" sounds like a good middle ground. Does not imply whether it is rational or not. Let's se if B-major is OK with this. --Tweenk (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I liked Radiation Hysteria. People are panicking and freaking out over nothing. Breeder reactors are being shut down, research is being slowed, all because some people have an irrational fear of nuclear power. Let me be honest in saying that one of my greatest fears is death by radiation sickness (after death by rabies- rabies is scary). However I know better than to fear nuclear power plants or radiotherapy. I know that we have developed safe protocols and technology for dealing with radiation, and I know that nuclear energy is a great boon to civilization.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Some errors in the article

Getting ready to go to work, so I don't have time to address them. I did manage to clarify the microwave oven error, as the energy levels inside of a microwave oven *are* harmful, if one has prolonged exposure to that level of microwave radiation. That is why microwave ovens have shielding and safety switches (one of which, if tripped, shorts the mains power and blows the fuze). The other is with depleted uranium, while it is correct that its radiation hazard is miniscule, the epidermis is more than enough shielding, the concern is that the dust could be ingested or inhaled, leaving an alpha source in direct contact with vulnerable tissues. This was learned of the hard way, from nuclear processing workers. A final note is a lack of the mention of radon gas hype. Radon gas is ubiquitous on this planet, as it's a natural product of uranium decay and there is a fair amount of uranium in many granite bedrock. While radon isn't a big deal, its daughter products can be absorbed by the body and are of health concern. I was a bit surprised to learn that tobacco plants manage to concentrate traces of polonium (a radon daughter product) when reading the Wikipedia article on polonium. As this article says, whether it's the carcinogens or the radioisotopes or both is not established. Well, off to work. The drive is a bit long, a two cigarette long drive. ;) Wzrd1 (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)