Best way to counter radiation scare

[Ralathon]

Technocracy: Scientists, engineers, and technologists examples include these technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businesspeople, and economists.[4]

Why now I prefer this more?

Sounds good in theory. But engineers are still humans. Say we need to divide the budget for 2015 in a technocratic society. The genetic engineers think their field is most important since it'll increase crop yields. Meanwhile the nuclear guys want to build another experimental fusion reactor to solve the energy crisis. The economist who has to divide the money isn't an expert in either field so he only has the arguments of either side to go on, and since neither side is an expert in both fields they can't compare the relative importance of their work either. So it all boils down to a good old debate except you cut out the middle man politician. Furthermore, how do they decide who is qualified? Scientists aren't robots, its in their interest to stay in office. Since only people with a good deal of knowledge in a field can deem someone else knowledgeable (else you could get elected by simply spouting enough technobabble) you'd get a small elite that decides who gets to rule the country.

Not to mention that the public will grab torches and pitchforks every time the technocracy does something that makes perfect sense from a scientific point of view, but is controversial with the public (obligatory Orion drive reference). Democracy sucks, but for now it seems to be the best available method. My guess is that we're stuck with it until we hit post scarcity (egalitarian anarchy seems the most likely after that) Or until we're taken over by Google (at which point it will be a dictatorship, hopefully benevolent).

[lajoswinkler]

I think you're being overly aggressive when dissecting the authors intent.

The author was being sensational, and exaggerating, but in a world where you can easily find people who believe microwaves actually do emit crazy nuclear radiation, how could you not write an article on radiation without having fun with it?

I took the authors work here as a tongue-in-cheek informative piece, rather than an uneducated work of ignorance. Even if I'm wrong, it's certainly not inviting of such grossly aggressive critique.

We're already seeing longterm effects of anti-technological and anti-science propaganda. Any news trying to deepen that misery should be critiqued, mercilessly. Most people are too stupid to realize the article is disinformative. While it might seem funny to people who realize what it is, the effects aren't good.

The problem with atomic power is that unlike most other power sources nuclear power plant IS a slowed down atomic bomb. Of course it can be operated safely, but that requires one more thing general public can't understand - 100% engineering attitude. You can make a rocket Kerbal way (with terrible risks and expenses, but it really worked good when there were no meas to precalculate everything), but you can't make fission reactor even slightly Kerbal way at all. You can't just try, you have to be 100% sure

Chernobyl is an example of trying gone wrong (during a test they bypassed some procedures they shouldn't, because the weren't aware of some factors), Fukushima is an example of flawed design requirements (less seismic resistance that should be for that place).

And don't forget that reaction products are what really is dangerously radioactive, and thee can't be done anything about it.

And that's the problem - i's really dangerous if gets in wrong hands, so there's terrible distance between usual people and the ones who really understands the technology. You just can't make a small safe model to play with, and most people can't understand without it.

Saying it's a slowed down atomic bomb is misleading because people might think that if something goes wrong, it can speed up and actually act as one. It can't. It's impossible. The worse thing that can happen is a steam explosion carrying fission products into the environment, and for even older plants that's highly unlikely. In addition, every one of them has a containment building, unlike Chernobyl which was just a reactor with something like an easily blown away metallic hangar over it.

100% attitude is not only possible, it's not even happening and it doesn't need to. Nuclear power plants aren't something which needs extreme constant attention to avoid an apocalypse. The amount and the redundancy of the feedback loop systems inside is insane. It's virtually impossible for an operator to create a meltdown without extensive team hardware modifications. If the system detects errors, it corrects itself and if there's even slight probability of even turbine damage, it shuts down. It's actually highly annoying for student operators because they have to extremely careful not to cause system shutdown. It's that sensitive. If a kid would start smashing stuff inside operator room, the power plant would automatically shut down and start emergency procedures.

Fukushima did not show any seismic failure. It performed remarkably. All systems, nuclear and electrical, performed as expected. If the electrical systems were positioned few metres higher, nothing would've happen. The nuclear part performed extremely well even when the whole plant was cut of from the grid. Mind that it's a several decades old power plant.

Nothing is perfect, accidents happen, but it's all about risk management and cost-benefit budget.

[78stonewobble]

I think that's common attitude toward "human factor". When it's down to a formula "1 idiot killed himself and couple unfortunate enough to be near him" people either consider it not too terrible or think that they aren't such stupid and won't probably get near such an idiot. Even if as in case of road accidents it happens all the way around. When 1 technology violation can kill a hundred (like in aviation)there's completely another opinion even if everything is done to not let that happen. With nuclear power the cost is even higher because it can irradiate entire regions... Maybe people tend to project their personal experience on such cases and see that they are more than likely to make the same mistakes that led to the disaster (and they don't care that with expert personnel and some additional security measures it's much less likely to happen) so that's what really is too dangerous... and it is if you let these people to the controls, but that's why nobody does.

And honestly, I wouldn't let myself to a nuclear reactor. Chemical reactor - yes, nuclear reactor - too unsafe with what ideas I can possibly come up with.

I like idea of nuclear power, just don't leave any place for "human factor" in it - with such systems you can't afford doing anything stupid. That's why it's not very compatible with democracy - such level technologies require technocratic society.

I suspekt it's more a limitation of our ways of thinking that arose to combat problems of a small band of "cavemen". We have a certain difficulty grasping any bigger picture or maybe rather we werent built for it.

I'm opposite... If I had a backyard, people could certainly buy it or use it for a nuclear powerplant. ...

Or for waste disposal allthough in that case I might live of the rent quite a bit away. *lol*

I'd just feel ... "Ok, did my part to improve the world now."

[Aghanim]

THREAD REVIVE TIME!!!

It seems that this radiation scare has become an epidemic

http://www.emfields.org/news/20130521-wifi-schools-france-banned.asp

http://www.drsinatra.com/wi-fi-radiation-prevention-tips

http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/13/12/30/0646229/parents-campaign-leads-to-wi-fi-ban-in-new-zealand-school

http://www.wifi-in-schools-australia.org/p/worldwide.html

https://www.google.com/#q=wifi+banning

and a quote from SirusKing, someone in IC2 forum that makes me revive this topic:

Holy crap, I just had an hour phone call with my mother... jesus, she is such a pseudoscientist.

Its actually rather depressing that people actually believe in this "new age science" stuff.

Her main point it seems is that extremely low energy microwaves, like in area-wifi, can cause extreme cell corruption...

wut

they aren't even of the right frequency to excite water

Apparently she visited this huge conference in new york with thousands of the top-scientists discussing what is practically a mixture of applied kinesiology and incorrect physics. REALLY incorrect physics. For some reason this "Gathering of top-scientists" does not give any results on google or wikipedia. Huh.

[Red Iron Crown]

It's simply amazing to me that I know parents who are worried about their kids being exposed to cellular and wifi radiation but think nothing of letting them use a tanning bed. Idiots.

The only solution is better science education.

[Kilmeister]

While you're at it, better ban the cell phones too. Oh And the PCs, and the tablets, hell while we're at it lets ban anything that runs on electricity. There, that takes care of the EMI. Now we just get the state to ban radio and television and we can go back to sitting at our campfires to teach... Wait, what? campfire smoke causes cancer too? Damn.

[SirusKing]

Better Science education, Critical Thinking lessons and an entire course on propaganda and source verification should do the trick.

Now try paying for it

While you're at it, better ban the cell phones too. Oh And the PCs, and the tablets, hell while we're at it lets ban anything that runs on electricity. There, that takes care of the EMI. Now we just get the state to ban radio and television and we can go back to sitting at our campfires to teach... Wait, what? campfire smoke causes cancer too? Damn.

You know, oxygen harms you in the long term! Ban that!

While we are on it, BAN DHMO!!!!1!

[victory143]

Jeremey Clarkson had his car STOP IN Chernobyl by the park; he has not died yet it is very close to the OPEN Nuclear Reactor Core. Damn.

[flyboy67109]

The fact is, people will believe what they want to believe. Show them the facts and, if they choose to ignore it, move on. And, if it's your parents, smile and node you head knowing that one day you will be locking them up in a nursing home. Back in 2007, a town in New Zealand actually passed a bill that would ban Dihydrogen Monoxide. If some loud "concerned mother" convinces a school board to ban WiFi due to radiation, that makes them fools following a fool. Fools like that have their minds already made up about the facts and won't listen to reason. As my grandfather once told me, "There's no cure for stupid."

[Red Iron Crown]

That's a bit defeatist. I don't think we should just throw up our hands and say, "Stupid is as stupid does." At least try to help people see reason; while it's true most of them will not be swayed, it's worth it if you get through to a few.

[Rakaydos]

How many bananas per day is a laptop's radiation?

[WestAir]

0. Laptops don't emit ionizing radiation.

[Seret]

OMG! Bananas are even more dangerous than laptops!

[Z-Man]

Not true! Eating laptops cannot be recommended.

[Rakaydos]

How many bananas of radiation for wifi then? Or any of the other "banned radiation hazards?"

[Stargate525]

Jeremey Clarkson had his car STOP IN Chernobyl by the park; he has not died yet it is very close to the OPEN Nuclear Reactor Core. Damn.

But now he does have two *****es.

[ZetaX]

The responses that seem to think that bananas are more dangerous than laptops due to higher (i.e. any) ionizing radiation are in no way better than that radiation scare itself: as much to the point as claiming that an elephant is lighter than a duck due to having all the same stuff except the addition of feathers.

I offer you to choose between 1 GJ of non-ionizing microwave radiation or a single alpha particle hitting you. Hint: one of them kills you despite not being ionizing.

Furthermore, even at the same energy levels, some radiations are more dangerous than others. Please use science and factss, not ridiculing by being in no way more informed.

[Aghanim]

Well they are joking... but the real problem is people associate non-ionizing radiation with ionizing radiation, and to support that evidence, they create scientific paper. To make it look legit, they manipulate the real data with their own personal bias

I want to dissect this page first: http://www.drsinatra.com/wi-fi-radiation-prevention-tips but my school wireless internet is so damn slow, the page won't even load

A preview of upgoing analysis of wireless danger:

We're pictured together, as we explain the scope of the problem. Here are some of the most important “take aways†I want you to have from the presentation:

1) There’s a lack of any scientific evidence that everyday things like Wi-Fi, cell towers, cell phones, cordless phone, microwave ovens, and even wireless baby monitors, are safe. At this point we’re all “one big human experimentâ€Ââ€â€swimming in a sea of invisible technologies that you can’t see, smell or hear, but could be harming you. There is lack of scientific evidence that its harmful either

2) A cordless cell phone base that’s constantly searching for a signal even when not in use is like having a mini cell tower inside your own home or office. Have you done power analysis?

3) Some of the safe choices you can make to limit EMF exposure in your own living environment include: choosing corded phones over cordless, speaker phones over Bluetooth, and DSL over Wi-Fi. Wait what? DSL over Wifi? DSL is the thing that supply internet to wireless access point!

Of course, the real analysis is in essay form, not like this

Edited March 13, 2014 by Aghanim

[Stargate525]

I want to dissect this page first: http://www.drsinatra.com/wi-fi-radiation-prevention-tips but my school wireless internet is so damn slow, the page won't even load

...I can't believe these people are serious... Yes, it's the Wi-Fi that's making your kids 'sick' in school, not the fact that they are IN SCHOOL and you as a parent are harping on about how they're going to GET SICK FROM THE WI-FI... GUH.

[Seret]

The responses that seem to think that bananas are more dangerous than laptops due to higher (i.e. any) ionizing radiation are in no way better than that radiation scare itself

You may want to switch your sarcasm detector out of O.F.F. mode.

[78stonewobble]

On the other hand I can't really blame the public for not exactly trusting the authorities to err on the side of caution in allowing "stuff".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registration,_Evaluation,_Authorisation_and_Restriction_of_Chemicals

To quote from the rationale for this:

Using potentially toxic substances (such as phthalates or brominated flame ******ants) is deemed undesirable and REACH will force the use of certain substances to be phased out. Using potentially toxic substances in products other than those ingested by humans (such as electronic devices) may seem to be safe, but there are several ways in which chemicals can enter the human body and the environment. Substances can leave particles during consumer use, for example into the air where they can be inhaled or ingested. Even where they might not do direct harm to humans, they can contaminate the air or water, and can enter the food chain through plants, fish or other animals. According to the European Commission, little safety information exists for 99 percent of the tens of thousands of chemicals placed on the market before 1981. There were 100,106 chemicals in use in the EU in 1981, when the last survey was performed. Of these only 3,000 have been tested and over 800 are known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction.

That number had apparently risen to 143.000 chemicals in use in the EU.

Personally I'm alot more worried about the effects of some of these chemicals than I am about most electromagnetic radiation. Except UV rays, but I suspect my indoorsy geekyness protects adequately from that and I don't live in a basement so count out radon. None of that really compaires to the risk I'm volunteering for via smoking though...

[Alchemist]

A fun story I read on some Russian site:

Specialists from ministry of education checking the informatics classroom for electromagnetic field level: Unacceptable! What are you doing?! It's several times over the limit!

The teacher switches the power off: Check now.

Specialists: What? Still over the limits? But how?

The teacher opens a window. A trolleybus drives by.

Specialists: OK. Couldn't measure the electromagnetic field levels due to excessive external electromagnetic levels.

[Seret]

A fun story I read on some Russian site:

Specialists from ministry of education checking the informatics classroom for electromagnetic field level: Unacceptable! What are you doing?! It's several times over the limit!

The teacher switches the power off: Check now.

Specialists: What? Still over the limits? But how?

The teacher opens a window. A trolleybus drives by.

Specialists: OK. Couldn't measure the electromagnetic field levels due to excessive external electromagnetic levels.

I can totally believe that. I grew up in a town with trolley buses. If you followed one in your car the radio would be swamped with a horrible whine every time the driver put his foot down.

[Alchemist]

I can totally believe that. I grew up in a town with trolley buses. If you followed one in your car the radio would be swamped with a horrible whine every time the driver put his foot down.

Never tried listening to the radio inside a trolleybus, but it's easy to imagine what a powerful electric motor or just its power lines can radiate. The problem is that people are afraid of computers and neglect some more powerful sources of electromagnetic waves.

Recently, one man told me a story. He was singing along with cassette player put with a speaker to his ear. And when he hit perfect resonance, there was feeling as if he was hit by something heavy and he almost fainted. Now that's what a electromagnetic waves can do! But that was a point-blank hit in the head with several watts of acoustic frequency electromagnetic radiation. I doubt common radio or microwave radiation can do something similar, because the frequency is too high for resonating with what happens in the brain. Unless you put enough power to cook something.

[ZetaX]

You may want to switch your sarcasm detector out of O.F.F. mode.

It is. The problem is that there are several persons in this forum, and even more I know otherwise, that say such things without having more clue themselves. It feels like countering misinformation with another one, and this is very wrong from a scientific point of view.