From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:01:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug27.131611.4850@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>Personal experience goes a long way toward
>determining peoples beliefs.  Until they experience radioactivity,
>it's abstract and unknown.

How does someone "experience" radioactivity?

>Fear is a reasonable response.

Fear of the unknown is reasonable?  There's no reason to fear
if the knowledge is available.  If radioactivity killed a lot of
people and we didn't know why, then there would be reason for fear.

>Education is the only way I know of to counteract this fear.
>Poo-pooing it won't help.

Find me a person that needs educating and I'll give it a try.  :-)
First there is a reasonable post that is educational.  Then an idiot
says "that's not reasonable".  Then HE gets poo-pooed.

You say "radioactivity really is different".  I say no it's not.
You say it is because it's fear of the unknown.  I say that's not
a good excuse.

So the question becomes:  Is radioactivity really different?
Or, is it perceived to be different by ignorant people who fear
the unknown?

>>Little kids don't mind the taste of Drano for a little while.
>>They don't read the warning labels very well.
>
>But parents *do*, and try to minimize the threat.  Which is kinda
>the point of this whole thread.  Knowledge is power.

This thread has a post that postulates breaking up the light bulb
and having a little kid eat the radioactive components.

That post gets poo-pooed.  Of course it doesn't "help".  But that's
the net.

---

The average person's ignorance about the fact that microscopic amounts
of radioactivity are harmless leads them to effectively superstitious
behavior.  So, the difference between electricity and radioactivity
is knowledge versus ignorance.  The problem is, the stupid people don't
know that they're ignorant.  They've been indoctrinated that all
radioactivity is dangerous.

A) No one ever tried to tell them otherwise.

B) Someone tried to tell them and they refused to believe.  That's
   true superstition.

Which is it?

Seems to me a lot of people would die if we got our legislators to pass
a law requiring smoke detectors to have a prominent radioactivity
warning label on the outside of the packaging.  And a caution label:
CAUTION:  The Surgeon General has determined that the radioactivity
enclosed cannot possibly represent a threat to human life or health.

Would stupid people read the warning or see the symbol and flee?

Is that superstitious?

---

The other problem is that many well-meaning people dispute the fact
that a small enough quantity of anything (not to mention radioactivity)
is harmless.  If a microgram can kill you, a nanogram must still be
dangerous, a millionth of that must still be dangerous, a millionth of
that must still be dangerous, a millionth of that must still be dangerous,
a single atom must still be dangerous.  Is there an argument about
how small is "small enough" to be harmless, or is there an argument
that no amount, however small, can ever be small enough?

The law recognizes that small amounts of radioactivity can be treated
differently from large amounts.  The "superstitious" public would not
accept this in their ignorance.  Flouride in your water?  Parts per
billion of the "known" carcinogen benzene in you water?  Parts per
trillion?  Is radioactivity really different?  100,000 volts of electricity
from a toy Van der Graff generator?  110 volts from an AC outlet?
What's a stupid person to do?  Avoid them all at all costs?  Panic at
the sight of a radioactivity sign?

Here's a funny one for you:  About 10 years ago I determined that the
screws holding the light switch had a quite high potential relative to
the well-grounded electric oven 8 inches away.  What did I do?  I put
freezer tape over the screws.  Isn't that really dumb?  Every day
the fingers of my loved ones are just 1/32 inch from potentially
life threatening electrical shock.  Is the risk really worth it?
Wouldn't it be wise to hire an electrician for $50 to come fix the
problem?  Hmmm, maybe it's time.  Then too, the car I drive is getting
pretty risky in more ways than one.  If it breaks, I could be hurt and
other people too.  Maybe it's time to feed it to the car recycler
machine.  Maybe it will last another year if I'm careful.  Maybe
I'm overconfident.  Maybe knowledge is dangerous.  I "know" I can handle
my car if something goes wrong.  I won't get hurt.  Then it's really
broken and I can recycle it.

Then again, my own behavior is getting pretty risky.  I'm spending
far too much time writing drivel to be posted on this stupid net.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3372 alt.politics.elections:11516