A Thought Experiment

[drplokta]

Suppose that you saw the following statement in the media, and after a little research discovered that it appeared to be well substantiated. How would you react? What do you think would be the general public reaction?

Radiation released from nuclear power stations continues to exceed safe limits in central London, and is causing over 4,000 deaths from cancer per year.

It's not true of course. But let's change a few words, and we get a statement that is true (as far as can be determined):

Particulates released from diesel vehicles continue to exceed safe limits in central London, and are causing over 4,000 deaths from asthma, lung disease and heart attacks per year.

So, what's your reaction to that one? And the public reaction? Is there a difference? Why?

Comments

[voidampersand.livejournal.com]

We know that normal levels of radiation released from nuclear power stations would not cause that number of deaths. Unless we're in a science fiction story where something went terribly wrong, a scare is being mongered.

The second statement is describing a normal situation. It's bad, but we've already made our compromises with it. Diesel is arguably much better than what was before: coal, horses, and people doing the same jobs. If we decide we can do better than diesel there will be stories about how the toll is unacceptable, but the reality is it is accepted right up to the point the alternatives are convenient and economic enough. Interestingly, I think we're close to that point. I want my shiny electric future. As a side effect it will make city living even nicer.