Best way to counter radiation scare

[MBobrik]

Nuclear energy proponents who dismiss the risks

.

Show me one such proponent here.

[THE META]

Out of interest, how many of these people who are afraid of Wi-fi, smoke cigarettes?

Perhaps the way I'd deal with it is to explain to them what "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" is, then get themselves to put their head near a router, laptop or mobile phone, and ask them if they start to feel ill/pain. They will likely say yes, at which point you inform them that the device is off, and they just invented any pain or sickness.

Either they'll realise they're wrong & be open to the concept that they're wrong about other things, or they'll be so pig-headed that they're not worth the time or effort.

this, my fellow, is known as the nocebo effect, and its not just in people with phobias, its human nature. if you make some one believe in something and that its harmful, they will start feeling the described symptoms. heck, it can even actually KILL people. if you make someone believe that [insert irrational thing here] causes asthma attacks, then there brains will think it does, and when they see that [insert irrational thing here], even though its doing literally nothing to them, they will ACTUALLY begin having a asthma attack. which is why depending on what you say to these people, say, if you said that leaving your head pressed against a wifi causes illness or pain from brain tumours created by the waves and can possibly send you in to a coma, then if they do that then there brain might actually send it's self in to a coma, so you should always word things appropriately when doing these tricks, and it can be done to you as well.

[hugix]

It is no help for the people at home but a trick that can help by politicians is expressing nuclear power plants in revenue and statistics. What a lot of people tend to forget is that other energy solutions are either unreliable / not usable in certain areas (Solar / wind power). And the ones that can run continuously are either very expensive or cost more lives than nuclear plants did.

[PakledHostage]

Show me one such proponent here.

It is clear from your various posts on this subject that, even though we both support nuclear energy to some degree, you are further towards the "everything nuclear is always good and harmless" extreme than I am. You are certainly more dismissive of the risks than I am.

And this, btw, points to a problem with your argument. Your previous post talks about reasonable compromises where room for such things exist, and unreasonable compromises when "answers are binary complements" of each other. You then go on to describe a situation where one party in a debate has reached its own compromise solution and is then forced to further compromise with an "extremist" opposition. Presumably you see these as binary opposites where the party that has reached its own compromise is "right" and the extremists are "wrong". Trouble is that the "rightness" of the group that reached its own compromise is subjective; the two positions cannot be binary complements of each other. If your characterization of your "right" and your "wrong" is valid, then any number of other characterizations (including my belief that you are willing to take unreasonable risks) must also be valid.

[Aghanim]

I think now this thread has split into 2 topics, which are:

- People talking about the perceived danger of non-ionizing EM radiation (and that is my OP topic) and

- People talking about the perceived danger of ionizing EM radiation

The title itself doesn't lend itself to either of those 2 topics, so I do not know if you are OOT

[MBobrik]

I am glad you've picked me as your target, because I can directly say that you are flat wrong and we won't end up

arguing whether some obscure fragment of some other guy's post three years ago can yet be reasonably interpreted as implying something indirectly.

It is clear from your various posts on this subject that, even though we both support nuclear energy to some degree, you are further towards the "everything nuclear is always good and harmless" extreme than I am. You are certainly more dismissive of the risks than I am.

No. Being (slightly?) more optimistic about something is not equal to being an extremist " who (completely) dismisses the risks" nor

someone saying "there is no radiation danger whatsoever" or "radiation is generally harmless".

not unless viewed through the eyes of an anti-nuclear fanatic to whom is anything nuclear equally absolute evil.

Presumably you see these as binary opposites where the party that has reached its own compromise is "right" and the extremists are "wrong".

There was no mentioning of "right and wrong" in my example. The point was, that the assumption that the right answer always lies in the middle will,

in case of an asymmetrical debate between proponents of a compromise and extremists, always lead to victory of the extremists, and is thus an invalid assumption

unless the extremists are always right irrespective of the issue. ( which is logically contradictory - consider two debates one between proponents of one extreme and compromise proponents, and compromise proponents vs proponents of the opposite extreme - both extremes will "win" their debate, but can't be both simultaneously right)

Trouble is that the "rightness" of the group that reached its own compromise is subjective

The problem is, that there is a pesky thing called "reality" which is not subjective at all. And I sincerely hope you are not one of those who deny its existence.

[briansun1]

this is almost like the dihydrogen monoxide thing

[Seret]

The title itself doesn't lend itself to either of those 2 topics, so I do not know if you are OOT

Agreed. I hope the OP was happy with what they go in the first few pages, cause they're likely to get sod all relevant posts from here on.

[PakledHostage]

I am glad you've picked me as your target, because I can directly say that you are flat wrong and we won't end up

arguing whether some obscure fragment of some other guy's post three years ago can yet be reasonably interpreted as implying something indirectly.

I will take that as a compliment. Thank you.

[MBobrik]

I will take that as a compliment. Thank you.

you've forgotten the /snark tag

[Kinglet]

In my opinion, Thorium reactors are the future (at least until fusion becomes viable), because Thorium is inherently safer than Uranium, is more common, and there is less waste to deal with. Also, Thorium bombs are not possible, unlike Uranium.

Fusion will become viable very soon. A fusion reactor has been built which produces the same amount of energy they use.

[Kryten]

Fusion will become viable very soon. A fusion reactor has been built which produces the same amount of energy they use.

Yes, one built for weapons research and completely impractical for actual power production. ITER is supposed to do this for more practical designs, but won't become operational before the end of the decade at least, and a prototype for demonstrating actual electricity production isn't expected for at least a decade after that.

[Seret]

Fusion will become viable very soon. A fusion reactor has been built which produces the same amount of energy they use.

Some of the experimental reactors have reached break-even in a limited sense, but there's none that can consistently produce more energy than is required to run the entire device. Even if there was an experimental machine that could, we'd still be a long way off having a viable commercial power plant.

I like fusion power, but it's decades away from being a solution to our energy problems.

[Ralathon]

Fusion will become viable very soon. A fusion reactor has been built which produces the same amount of energy they use.

That inertial fusion experiment only achieved break-even for a few moments and didn't account for conversion losses. It was more equivalent to a (very small) hydrogen bomb than a usable reactor. Fusion is nowhere NEAR viable yet. We simply don't know enough about plasma physics under continuously burning conditions yet, that's the whole point of the ITER project.

We need something to bridge the gap, not to mention that fusion reactors require some very expensive equipment compared to a conventional nuclear powerplant. So we can't rely on fusion to save us all just yet, it is going to be a slow transition as the technology matures.

[lajoswinkler]

this, my fellow, is known as the nocebo effect, and its not just in people with phobias, its human nature. if you make some one believe in something and that its harmful, they will start feeling the described symptoms. heck, it can even actually KILL people. if you make someone believe that [insert irrational thing here] causes asthma attacks, then there brains will think it does, and when they see that [insert irrational thing here], even though its doing literally nothing to them, they will ACTUALLY begin having a asthma attack. which is why depending on what you say to these people, say, if you said that leaving your head pressed against a wifi causes illness or pain from brain tumours created by the waves and can possibly send you in to a coma, then if they do that then there brain might actually send it's self in to a coma, so you should always word things appropriately when doing these tricks, and it can be done to you as well.

Only in certain cases. It requires a malfunctioning brain. In healthly individuals, such nocebo will increase heart rate, respiration will change and weak discomfort will occur. You can't cause an asthmatic attack using lies and you certainly can't throw someone in a coma by lying to them about "cancer radiation".

Nocebo makes you feel bad, placebo makes you feel good. They don't cause actual stuff happening. At best it's a weak effect best expressed statistically.

[Vanamonde]

The discussion in this thread has become excessively personal at times. Please confine your remarks to the subject of the thread and avoid experssing opinions about each others' character.

[KvickFlygarn87]

this is almost like the dihydrogen monoxide thing

Garden hose?

[11of10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

[jwenting]

it's not a hoax. Dihydrogen monoxide is the most dangerous substance in the multiverse.

It's the central component in acid rain, is responsible for all cases of drowning, all cases of dehydration, an important catalyst in a vast variety of corrosive chemical reactions, the list of its nasty properties goes on and on.

[TheDataMiner]

it's not a hoax. Dihydrogen monoxide is the most dangerous substance in the multiverse.

It's the central component in acid rain, is responsible for all cases of drowning, all cases of dehydration, an important catalyst in a vast variety of corrosive chemical reactions, the list of its nasty properties goes on and on.

Every time someone drowns or is dehydrated it is because of Dihydrogen monoxide?

I think not!

[Palladium Corp]

O₂ is worse. Look at what it does to iron.

[CleverClothe]

...all cases of dehydration...

I feel Dihydrogen Monoxide gets a bad rap for that. Especially since it literally has nothing to do with dehydration.

[Aghanim]

â€â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€-

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET FOR DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE

â€â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€-

PRODUCT NAME: DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE

FORMULA WT: 18.00

CAS NO.: 07732-18-5

NIOSH/RTECS NO.: ZC0110000

COMMON SYNONYMS: DIHYDROGEN OXIDE, HYDRIC ACID

PRODUCT CODES: 4218,4219

EFFECTIVE: 05/30/86

REVISION #01

LABORATORY PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

SAFETY GLASSES; LAB COAT

PRECAUTIONARY LABEL STATEMENTS

STORAGE: KEEP IN TIGHTLY CLOSED CONTAINER.

BOILING POINT: 100 C ( 212 F)

VAPOR PRESSURE(MM HG): 17.5

MELTING POINT: 0 C ( 32 F)

VAPOR DENSITY(AIR=1): N/A

SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 1.00

EVAPORATION RATE: N/A

SOLUBILITY(H2O): COMPLETE (IN ALL PROPORTIONS) % VOLATILES BY VOLUME: 100

APPEARANCE & ODOR: ODORLESS, CLEAR COLORLESS LIQUID.

TOXICITY: LD50 (IPR-MOUSE)(G/KG) – 190

LD50 (IV-MOUSE) (MG/KG) – 25

DISPOSAL PROCEDURE

DISPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE,

AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.

SAF-T-DATA STORAGE COLOR CODE: ORANGE (GENERAL STORAGE)

SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS

KEEP CONTAINER TIGHTLY CLOSED. SUITABLE FOR ANY GENERAL CHEMICAL STORAGE

AREA. DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE IS CONSIDERED A NON-REGULATED PRODUCT, BUT

REACTS VIGOROUSLY WITH SOME MATERIALS. THESE INCLUDE SODIUM, POTASSIUM

AND OTHER ALKALI METALS; ELEMENTAL FLUORINE; AND STRONG DEHYDRATING AGENTS

SUCH AS SULFURIC ACID. IT FORMS EXPLOSIVE GASES WITH CALCIUM CARBIDE.

AVOID CONTACT WITH ALL MATERIALS UNTIL INVESTIGATION SHOWS SUBSTANCE IS

COMPATIBLE. EXPANDS SIGNIFICANTLY UPON FREEZING. DO NOT STORE IN RIGID

CONTAINER AND PROTECT FROM FREEZING.

DOMESTIC (D.O.T.)

PROPER SHIPPING NAME CHEMICALS, N.O.S. (NON-REGULATED)

INTERNATIONAL (I.M.O.)

PROPER SHIPPING NAME CHEMICALS, N.O.S. (NON-REGULATED

- See more at: http://www.improbable.com/2010/03/24/dhmo-material-safety-data-sheet/#sthash.KOhwZls0.dpuf

[TheDarkStar]

-big scary warning labels-

*runs from scary warnings and stays as far from DHMO as possible*

Seriously, though, it's amazing what important-looking and sciency words can do to make people panic.

[Aghanim]

Well this is the video of DHMO:

And this comment:

DHMO joke is old. Really old. What we should really be scared of is Infra-Violet Radiation (or 'light' as it is more commonly known).