Talk:Radiophobia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Questionable wording
"Fear of radiation is natural, since it presents clear danger;" — I think this statement should be qualified a bit. Radiation, per se, does not present a "clear danger" (light bulbs radiate, but they do not cause harm in the sense meant); fear of the hazards of highly-radioactive sources is reasonable, but I don't know if it is natural (it doesn't come "naturally", it comes via a lot of discussions of what radiation is, what the hazards are, how it works, etc.). --Fastfission 16:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
== Quiestionable Wording == / Bias. "Attempts to downplay the danger of radiation by stigmatizing the opponents of nuclear plants and nuclear tests with the label of "phobiacs" took place in the USA" I find this a biased statement in that it implies that most people are underestimating the risk of radiation.
People cited "a major radiation" leak from a U.S. reactor, although the leak was so small that it could be replicated by exposure to bricks. Since most people do not get cancer from sleeping next to bricks for one night, it seems to me that the people as a whole overestimate the risk of radiation and especailly other dangers associated with Nuclear Power.
There has never been a single person killed in a Nuclear reactor, while there are hundreds of people killed in fossil fuel plants regularly. And pollution of the air by the use of coal power plants is estimated by U.S. federal agencies to cause thousands of deaths per year in a much more traceable fashion than linking a cancer death to a sum of radiation leak much smaller than one would recieve from the Sun.
