Skip to main content

Radiation and Fear Itself

fear_1_lg As you can see in the post below, the brief scare about radiation over the weekend has quickly faded and there are still no signs of increased levels.

The Environmental Protection Agency has put up a Frequently Asked Questions page to explain how increased radiation levels are detected in the United States. I knew some of this but not all of it. Well worth a visit.


From NPR this morning, a discussion between Dr. Robert DuPont, who teaches clinical psychiatry at Georgetown Medical School and specializes in the study and treatment of fear, including the fear of nuclear energy:

DuPont: God, you've got people in California taking potassium iodide to prevent cancers from the radiation from this plant. What is that? And I think the answer is in biology. Fear dominates our attention. Whatever the tsunami was, whatever the earthquake was, that's over. Sure, it could happen again. But the nuclear reactor? Who knows.

That’s a little harsh – lack of good information played a part - but it leads into a productive conversation between DuPont and NPR’s Renee Montagne about fear of nuclear energy.

Montagne: Now, what makes people's reaction to nuclear energy so different than other energy sources - for instance, you know, drilling for oil or coal mining - when they have also some quite tragic, you know, loss of life and danger in the industry?

DuPont: They do, but it's familiar and it doesn't have the connection to Hiroshima that we have with nuclear power, and it's also familiar. We're used to thinking about industrial accidents.

The whole thing is worth a read. I’d hate to think that anyone suffered an irrational fear of nuclear energy, which is really rooted in a fear of radiation, but there you are.


But maybe it’s too easy to point to fear – either of nuclear energy or radiation – as determinative the response to Fukushima Daiichi. In the local event, a fear mongering media must take a large role. Or is even that true?

Only 44 percent of those who took part in the CBS telephone survey said they were more fearful of a possible nuclear accident in the U.S., even as Japan struggles to put the lid on their own potential catastrophe at the tsunami-ravaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

And that means:

Fifty-three percent of those polled said they were no more fearful of a similar catastrophe in the U.S. than they were prior to the ongoing issues at Fukushima.

Well, that still means that 44% are afraid of an accident here. CBS doesn’t appear to have polled it, but that must be a big uptick from the number prior to the Japan earthquake and a number that will doubtless decrease as time passes. For the moment, though, it suggests that efforts to name and dispel the fear are important.

That’s what EPA and NPR are doing and, of course, what NEI is doing, too. If this is polled again in a month or so, we’ll have a better way to judge fear whipped up by alarmist coverage and fear that sustains itself.

Not sure where this came from – I’ve seen old books on acting that showed your how to express different emotions. Pictures like this abound in them.


CrisisMaven said…
Your readers might be interested in the pertinent question of how to treat their radioactively contaminated drinking water:

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…