5 ms·

When the nature of the hazard is entirely new and it causes no symptoms in the short term, who could imagine it's dangerous? Are we confident that Facebook use

by Normati 12y ago

When the nature of the hazard is entirely new and it causes no symptoms in the short term, who could imagine it's dangerous? Are we confident that Facebook use won't cause psychological problems as people grow older? That reading endless news stories on the internet won't reduce people's ability to maintain a long train of thought?

gurkendoktor 12y ago
> who could imagine it's dangerous There are usually people who do, but they will be labelled anti-progress and anti-science because there is no scientific background for their worries (yet).
- mason240 12y ago
  Because they are anti-progress and anti-science. For every horrific story of "we didn't know the dangers involved until it was too late," there are dozens of other new technologies that give people "bad feelings" that lead to great advancements. Just imagine if the anti-vaccine hysteria of today was present in the the past. Polio and small pox could still be rampant today. Look at what the anti-nuclear power activists achieved during the 1970s - a greater reliance on fossil fuels for generating electricity. Now today we are dealing with unfounded fears of GMOs. You and I can probably comfortably live with higher food prices, but millions around the world can not wait for 30 years of study "just in case." And then you have fearmonging pushed for political reasons, such as this new opposition to building the Keystone pipeline, created to be a political wedge issue. The result? More oil transported by railcar, which uses more energy and causes more oil spills. The rail yard near me now had to expand into swamp on the Mississippi river[1] to accommodate for all the extra oil railcars. [1] http://therippleeffectmn.blogspot.com/2014/11/wetland-versus-railroad-who-decides.html http://therippleeffectmn.blogspot.com/2014/11/wetland-versus...
  - pjc50 12y ago
    anti-nuclear power activists achieved during the 1970s .. before Chernobyl and Fukushima. I think we need to be careful about claiming the safety of nuclear power in a thread about the dangers of radium.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      Chernobyl and Fukushima killed fewer people than many individual coal mining disasters, let alone the deaths caused by coal's air pollution (which includes vastly more radiation than nuclear accidents have generated).
      - x0x0 12y ago
        Coal doesn't have the capability for a cost cutting corporation to have a little oops and kill hundreds of thousands, or irradiate chunks of a state. We've been lucky so far. There have been multiple nuclear accidents -- including 3 mile island -- that could have been far worse and weren't because of luck. Luck is not a viable strategy for dealing with nuclear power.
        ceejayoz 12y ago
        Nuclear doesn't really have the ability to kill hundreds of thousands - even Chernobyl's verified deaths (Greenpeace estimates aside) are under 100, and Fukushima didn't kill a single person. It's never going to go off like a nuke. Chernobyl did serve as a pretty decent area-denial weapon, but advances in both process and reactor design make such a thing extraordinarily unlikely today. The theoretical, worst-case scenarios for nuclear are still better than the every-day reality of coal and oil.
        x0x0 12y ago
        Because something hasn't happened yet it can't is your claim? In no way are worst case scenarios for nuclear better than coal/oil. For example, we don't have the capability to evacuate nyc or san diego.
        ceejayoz 12y ago
        > Because something hasn't happened yet it can't is your claim? Nuclear reactors physically cannot generate a nuclear explosion of the sort you'd get from a bomb. They've been in use for 60 years. More people per unit of energy die from solar and hydro accidents than from nuclear power, and coal is many, many times more deadly. Turkey's coal mining accident this year killed 3x what Chernobyl - the world's worst nuclear disaster - did, and such mining disasters are routine. http://physics.kenyon.edu/people/sullivan/PHYS102/PHYS102F12Lecture15.pdf http://physics.kenyon.edu/people/sullivan/PHYS102/PHYS102F12...
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Net necessarily. Being against something regardless of evidence is an anti-progress position, but asking for safety protocols to be established or longitudinal studies to be carried out is quite reasonable. In this case the scientists and companies knew about the risks and had stringent safety protocols for some people but not for others. If it ain't safe for the CEO, it ain't safe for the janitor.
DeuceDaily 12y ago
> who could imagine it's dangerous? My point of view could be skewed by prior knowledge, but I can still see asking some questions before sticking auto-luminescent material in my mouth.

by Normati 12y ago

gurkendoktor 12y ago

> who could imagine it's dangerous There are usually people who do, but they will be labelled anti-progress and anti-science because there is no scientific background for their worries (yet).

mason240 12y ago
Because they are anti-progress and anti-science. For every horrific story of "we didn't know the dangers involved until it was too late," there are dozens of other new technologies that give people "bad feelings" that lead to great advancements. Just imagine if the anti-vaccine hysteria of today was present in the the past. Polio and small pox could still be rampant today. Look at what the anti-nuclear power activists achieved during the 1970s - a greater reliance on fossil fuels for generating electricity. Now today we are dealing with unfounded fears of GMOs. You and I can probably comfortably live with higher food prices, but millions around the world can not wait for 30 years of study "just in case." And then you have fearmonging pushed for political reasons, such as this new opposition to building the Keystone pipeline, created to be a political wedge issue. The result? More oil transported by railcar, which uses more energy and causes more oil spills. The rail yard near me now had to expand into swamp on the Mississippi river[1] to accommodate for all the extra oil railcars. [1] http://therippleeffectmn.blogspot.com/2014/11/wetland-versus-railroad-who-decides.html http://therippleeffectmn.blogspot.com/2014/11/wetland-versus...
- pjc50 12y ago
  anti-nuclear power activists achieved during the 1970s .. before Chernobyl and Fukushima. I think we need to be careful about claiming the safety of nuclear power in a thread about the dangers of radium.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    Chernobyl and Fukushima killed fewer people than many individual coal mining disasters, let alone the deaths caused by coal's air pollution (which includes vastly more radiation than nuclear accidents have generated).
    - x0x0 12y ago
      Coal doesn't have the capability for a cost cutting corporation to have a little oops and kill hundreds of thousands, or irradiate chunks of a state. We've been lucky so far. There have been multiple nuclear accidents -- including 3 mile island -- that could have been far worse and weren't because of luck. Luck is not a viable strategy for dealing with nuclear power.
      - ceejayoz 12y ago
        Nuclear doesn't really have the ability to kill hundreds of thousands - even Chernobyl's verified deaths (Greenpeace estimates aside) are under 100, and Fukushima didn't kill a single person. It's never going to go off like a nuke. Chernobyl did serve as a pretty decent area-denial weapon, but advances in both process and reactor design make such a thing extraordinarily unlikely today. The theoretical, worst-case scenarios for nuclear are still better than the every-day reality of coal and oil.
        x0x0 12y ago
        Because something hasn't happened yet it can't is your claim? In no way are worst case scenarios for nuclear better than coal/oil. For example, we don't have the capability to evacuate nyc or san diego.
        ceejayoz 12y ago
        > Because something hasn't happened yet it can't is your claim? Nuclear reactors physically cannot generate a nuclear explosion of the sort you'd get from a bomb. They've been in use for 60 years. More people per unit of energy die from solar and hydro accidents than from nuclear power, and coal is many, many times more deadly. Turkey's coal mining accident this year killed 3x what Chernobyl - the world's worst nuclear disaster - did, and such mining disasters are routine. http://physics.kenyon.edu/people/sullivan/PHYS102/PHYS102F12Lecture15.pdf http://physics.kenyon.edu/people/sullivan/PHYS102/PHYS102F12...
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Net necessarily. Being against something regardless of evidence is an anti-progress position, but asking for safety protocols to be established or longitudinal studies to be carried out is quite reasonable. In this case the scientists and companies knew about the risks and had stringent safety protocols for some people but not for others. If it ain't safe for the CEO, it ain't safe for the janitor.

DeuceDaily 12y ago

> who could imagine it's dangerous? My point of view could be skewed by prior knowledge, but I can still see asking some questions before sticking auto-luminescent material in my mouth.