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

[ms-cataclysm.livejournal.com]

I think exotic risks are much more frightening . I know plenty of people who are panicky about terrorist activity but totally blase about familiar but higher risks such as traffic accidents.

I don't think this is entirely stupid . If you have an existing risk then you've either already considered it and made some sort of adaptation (maybe I should live further away from the M1 than Aspley Guise in my case) or can't be arsed. If you become aware of a new risk, you need to think about whether you need to change your lifestyle.