2 ms·
It's meant to highlight the fact that although the abstract reasoning of humans usually gives them great advantage over animals, it can backfire. Exactly, that
by onli 10y ago
It's meant to highlight the fact that although the abstract reasoning of humans usually gives them great advantage over animals, it can backfire.
Exactly, that's how I understood it as well. And here the implications is that human reasoning backfired because we judged the impact of nuclear accident wrong. It is combined with a "the boar lives there well because it has no fear, we can live there as well". That comes from the first sentence, that health risks from fear of radiation exceed the actual health risks from the radiation.
That's typical pro-nuclear propaganda.
- jessriedel 10y ago> And here the implications is that human reasoning backfired because we judged the impact of nuclear accident wrong Yes, that is what he claimed. > It is combined with a "the boar lives there well because it has no fear, we can live there as well". No, he did not claim that. > That comes from the first sentence, that health risks from fear of radiation exceed the actual health risks from the radiation. The existence of boars is not being used to support the claim that fear of radiation exceed the actual health risks. Rather, that claim is being asserted independently.
- mpweiher 10y ago> That's typical pro-nuclear propaganda. No, it's a simple matter of fact statement. That doesn't mean that radiation is not dangerous. Especially in high-doses it is extremely dangerous. But so is almost anything energy related (heat of a gas turbine, fall from a dam, etc.). In terms of public health, so far fear of radiation has had worse health outcomes than radiation.