Best way to counter radiation scare

[MBobrik]

maybe it is a vital component of the fermi paradox. radiation, vaccines, modern medicine and technology in general. the more efficient a technology is, the more it becomes target of technophobia. Maybe in the grand scheme of things, it is a vital component keeping sentient beings in check. The more powerful technologies a species develops the more it fears and reviles them thus making a technological civilization a self-limiting condition.

[rkman]

None whatsoever. Fukushima has barely increased radiation levels in Japan itself, anything in america is not going to be even distinguishable from background.

How does that mean there is no radiation danger whatsoever (from Fukushima or otherwise)?

It's all good as long as Americans are not affected? Exceptionalism much?

The realistic approach to 'the radiation scare' is neither to say that all radiation is harmful, nor to say that radiation is generally harmless.

It all depends on the type of radiation and the intensity. On the one hand even non-ionizing E/M waves can be harmful if it is powerful enough (see micro wave oven). On the other hand background levels of radio-active radiation is harmless, but radio-active radiation will kill after exposure for only a few minutes if the dose is high enough (see Chernobyl cleanup crew).

At least the US military takes it seriously:

Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

7 Response in other countries

7.2 U.S. military

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#U.S._military

In Operation Tomodachi, the United States Navy dispatched the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and other vessels in the Seventh Fleet to fly a series of helicopter operations.[347] A U.S. military spokesperson said that low-level radiation forced a change of course en route to Sendai.[348] The Reagan and sailors aboard were exposed to "a month's worth of natural background radiation from the sun, rocks or soil"[349] in an hour and the carrier was repositioned..

[hugix]

Firstly it's referred to as "nuclear" radiation, not "radioactive" radiation. Secondly, high doses of EMR can give you cancer. That's why you wear lead for x-rays, and also why a gamma ray burst event directed at Earth is very bad news.

Ah sorry for the mistranslation. In my native language nuclear is called 'radioactief'. Hence the wrong word.

And yeah, anything in high doses is deadly, even water.

[Kryten]

It's all good as long as Americans are not affected? Exceptionalism much?

Yes, in the context of the question 'how much actual danger [is] the average American in right now?'. I mean, really, this is basic reading comprehension stuff.

[Themohawkninja]

It's all good as long as Americans are not affected? Exceptionalism much?

Nobody even implied that.

[MBobrik]

How does that mean there is no radiation danger whatsoever (from Fukushima or otherwise)?

It's all good as long as Americans are not affected? Exceptionalism much?

The realistic approach to 'the radiation scare' is neither to say that all radiation is harmful, nor to say that radiation is generally harmless.

.

What a nasty string of straw men. What is the meaning of such distortion ? nobody said nor implied such things. so why are you making such false accusations ?

[The Jedi Master]

Whoa, wait a minute people. You're the ones accusing here. He's just saying that it probably isn't harmless.

[MBobrik]

He's just saying that it probably isn't harmless.

Nobody here said here that all radiation at what ever dose is harmless. Yet he responds like someone did, thus insinuating that we did.

[PakledHostage]

Whoa, wait a minute people. You're the ones accusing here.

Just ignore MBrobrik when he accuses anyone of making a straw man argument. It is his stock response to anyone who doesn't agree with him. I think he may actually be a hipster who enjoys using the term ironically. So often, the accusations are themselves straw men arguments in so far as they misrepresent his opponent's position and then attack that misrepresentation.

[lajoswinkler]

At least the US military takes it seriously:

Not many people understand there is a great difference between radiation and radiological contamination. When radioisotopes are released, actual rays are hardly important. What's important is that you don't get that radioactive material in your organism.

The media is relentless in their mission to make everyone dumb about it. Fallout from Fukushima? There is none. Fallout is that crap produced when a nuclear weapon is detonated and is made out of calcinated dirt contaminated with compounds of extremely radioactive elements like radioisotopes of einsteinium and fermium, iodine, etc. Those are the ones that have half-lifes on the order of few hours and days.

Fukushima leaked stuff chemically mobile stuff and stuff lighter in mass. The main route was by ocean water. Ocean is an awesome dillution machine, with only some of the living organisms accumulating certain radioisotopes.

Chernobyl puked awesome amounts of light and heavy stuff into the air in the middle of a continent.

Of course you can say that contamination from Fukushima has reached USA, and you'd be right, but the amounts of that matter are negligible. The most advanced detectors are barely able to see it. It's not something you can pick up even with an expensive Geiger counter.

[Kinglet]

STOP DERAILING THIS THREAD.

Stop discussing things which are beyond the forum rules. (Government stuff)

[The Jedi Master]

STOP DERAILING THIS THREAD.

Stop discussing things which are beyond the forum rules. (Government stuff)

Yeah, I kinda derailed it, didn't I? It could use its own thread, though, it is an important issue. Anyway, I'll stop now.

[Aghanim]

Alright alright alright! Sometimes I feel that this thread has been derailed much, but Seret is right. Although we have already taught about the electromagnetic spectrum, and how non-ionizing radiation isn't that dangerous, my friend still insists that using laptop while it's charging will create radiation that will make cancer. And his justification are: Because someone sells glasses to prevent it! Nearly every parents that I know believe in this radiation scare, its like they forgot everything they learned at high school, and again one of my friend go to my school server room and say that because of many computers there is many radiations...

[Themohawkninja]

Alright alright alright! Sometimes I feel that this thread has been derailed much, but Seret is right. Although we have already taught about the electromagnetic spectrum, and how non-ionizing radiation isn't that dangerous, my friend still insists that using laptop while it's charging will create radiation that will make cancer. And his justification are: Because someone sells glasses to prevent it! Nearly every parents that I know believe in this radiation scare, its like they forgot everything they learned at high school, and again one of my friend go to my school server room and say that because of many computers there is many radiations...

You should tell your friend that if anything, glasses are going to concentrate the radiation to a focal point of their retinas, since IIRC that is actually how glasses work; the focusing of EMR through a lens to make the optical light more sharp to the human eye in question.

Secondly, you should point out the billions of electronics users and the far smaller amount of people with cancer to give statistical evidence.

P.S. If nearly every parent you know believes this, I would like to know where you live so I can avoid it at all costs.

[Aghanim]

Its Indonesia. Yes, I do know this problem is really bad

[Drunkrobot]

Rather off-topic, but I remember back in Physics class a year ago, we were doing raditation, and the teacher pulled out samples of radioactive isotopes, and he put them next to the schools' ancient Geiger counter. I think your friends' parents would've gone ape if they were locked in a room with the samples!

I don't have much advice how to deal with them (Throwing hard evidence at someone who has an opinion that disagrees with that evidence tends to reinforce their opinion, rather than change it. It's sad that we're the only species where "adapting ones' own knowlege and behavior in response to new data" isn't complete instinct.) If he ever has kids of his own, try to tell him to make sure he doesn't stifle their childhoods because of some phobia he has.

[Themohawkninja]

It's sad that we're the only species where "adapting ones' own knowlege and behavior in response to new data" isn't complete instinct.

That's not really surprising considering the complexity of the data relative to animalistic needs.

[lajoswinkler]

Alright alright alright! Sometimes I feel that this thread has been derailed much, but Seret is right. Although we have already taught about the electromagnetic spectrum, and how non-ionizing radiation isn't that dangerous, my friend still insists that using laptop while it's charging will create radiation that will make cancer. And his justification are: Because someone sells glasses to prevent it! Nearly every parents that I know believe in this radiation scare, its like they forgot everything they learned at high school, and again one of my friend go to my school server room and say that because of many computers there is many radiations...

So it's the screen they're concerned about?

Yeah, that's a scare left from the old days of bad CRT screens which were leaking beta rays. Electron guns emit them, so the glass used to make the screen is lead glass. In the old days this shielding wasn't so good, so some of you might remember those shields people would put in front of the screens. They often had a grounding cable.

LCD screens do not have electron guns. They're a liquid crystal matrix with illumination behind it. Nothing to be concerned about.

"While it's charging" is a weird add-on, probably one of the numerous urban technological myths which circulate in Asian countries.

[Extemporary]

I remember in my grade 9 science class, the teacher did a demonstration with various gas discharge tubes and diffraction gratings that allowed us to see the different spectra. A fairly typical demonstration, which I think most people have seen at some point. A couple years later, another chemistry class was covering related material, and the demonstration wouldn't have been at all out of place, especially since most of that class hadn't seen it before. Except this time, we had to settle for YouTube videos of it because the school board won't let us get exposed to the radiation.

I think the most ironic part is that the classroom was lit entirely with fluorescent lights, which is the same phenomenon.

[Seret]

So, to address the OP's original question: how do you convince people these devices are safe?

First of all: I don't know. These are just some of my ideas, I'd love to hear from someone with some expertise. But some things I think are helpful are:

1. Recognise that your default style may not be the right one. I suspect that many of us here on a KSP forum are of an engineering/science/technical bent, and are generally data-driven and analytical. As others have mentioned, our default approach is to argue rationally, which isn't effective when engaging people about changing their beliefs. Which leads on to:
   
2. Recognise you're dealing with a belief. The idea that EM radiation from devices is harmful is a belief, which means it doesn't necessarily have a logical and consistent framework that supports it. It may be based on vague, emotional and/or contradictory ideas. Worse, people don't simply drop beliefs if you manage to contradict the ideas that support them. An adversarial approach makes many people entrench their beliefs.
   
3. Recognise that beliefs are ok. We all have a ton of beliefs. Some of us like to think that we work hard to ensure these are evidence-base and factual, but tbh most people don't. People define themselves by the collection of beliefs they hold, so don't make the mistake of thinking an irrational belief is trivial to them because it's trivial to you.
   
4. Recognise that beliefs take time to change. People need time to realign their beliefs, even if they do accept new information which contradicts existing beliefs. You're probably not going to get a quick win.
   
5. Be sympathetic, not adversarial. You're dealing with people's fears, you need to reassure, not argue. Pick your language carefully, say "we" a lot, mirror their words back to them and ask open questions. Don't lead the conversation, try to get them to talk openly about it.
   
6. Many people respond to an argument from authority. You may be able to find an authoritative figure that they trust and can provide reassurance. This is a risky one IMO, as the wrong authority could simply reinforce their beliefs.
   

[K^2]

My favorite example is the fact that MRI stands for Magnetic Resonance Imaging. While what it does is actually NMR Tomography. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. They dropped the word "nuclear" from the name of the medical device, because it scares people. It has nothing to do with nuclear decay, nuclear energy, or ionizing radiation of any kind. But just having the word in there would be enough for people not to get MRI scans.

So yeah, I'll say it again. We need better education.

[ZetaX]

In my native language (german), the "nuclear" part in MRI is not really dropped. Instead the word "Kern" (core, nucleus) is used there, as is common for related concepts like "Kernenergie" (nuclear energy) or "Kernkraftwerk" (nuclear power plant). I've heard some rumors that the usage of the prefix "Kern-" instead of either "Atom-" or "Nuklear-" was also to lessen scares, but I don't know if this is actually true.

Edited January 5, 2014 by ZetaX

[Depth]

My grandmother refuses to get a satellite dish because of the "radiation". She uses a microwave oven but stays far away from it during operation; and when I was a child she would pull me away from it if I got too close. This kind of thing is not a rational fear; it can't be outgrown or educated away once acquired.

Hopefully in the next 20 years ports will ease their no-nuclear policies and allow cargo ships to use reactors. An average 100,000hp cargo ship burns 13,600 litres of bunker fuel per hour at normal speed. The USS Nimitz gets 260,000hp on one refuel per 20 years.

[Duxwing]

My grandmother refuses to get a satellite dish because of the "radiation". She uses a microwave oven but stays far away from it during operation; and when I was a child she would pull me away from it if I got too close. This kind of thing is not a rational fear; it can't be outgrown or educated away once acquired.

Therapy can break the fear.

Hopefully in the next 20 years ports will ease their no-nuclear policies and allow cargo ships to use reactors. An average 100,000hp cargo ship burns 13,600 litres of bunker fuel per hour at normal speed. The USS Nimitz gets 260,000hp on one refuel per 20 years.

How would the number of necessary mobile nuclear reactors be prevented from causing proportionately frequent accidents?

-Duxwing

[Kinglet]

My grandmother refuses to get a satellite dish because of the "radiation". She uses a microwave oven but stays far away from it during operation; and when I was a child she would pull me away from it if I got too close. This kind of thing is not a rational fear; it can't be outgrown or educated away once acquired.

Hopefully in the next 20 years ports will ease their no-nuclear policies and allow cargo ships to use reactors. An average 100,000hp cargo ship burns 13,600 litres of bunker fuel per hour at normal speed. The USS Nimitz gets 260,000hp on one refuel per 20 years.

Microwaves are not healthy. But the part about the satellite dish makes me faceplam. Dishes RECIEVE satellite signals which are everywhere. And those signals are not nuclear radiation.