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

[grytpype-thynne.livejournal.com]

I'll let you get on with it without weighing in too much,as you note the most important point which is that (especially) collectively we cannot understand the concept of risk and, indeed, associate risk levels with our emotional responses to certain types of traumatic event rather than the grind of daily mortality. Without reaching for my textbooks I recall 1,000+ workplace deaths annually in coal mining and railway construction a their respective peaks and yes, some action occurred as result but hardly public outrage. Indeed in the thirties iron foundry trade unions campaigned against safety legislation to keep their members in (very dangerous and unhealthy) jobs.

Probably a good time to recommend Michael Blastland.

It's almost as if we're incapable of acting in our own best interests. It's time for the Hexamon to take over (yes, been rereading Greg Bear).