|
|
| Author |
Message |
bru
|
|
Scared to Death
| 
Sep 10 16:02 UTC 1996 |
Just watched an interesting program on TV last night. Are we scaring
ourselves to death.
Danger to life as a fraction of our lives.
Action Days of life lost
Airtravel 1 day
automobiles 183 days
yet the government spends billions regulating air lines and a fraction of that
regulating cars.
He asked people in the audience if they would approve a new fuel that cost
no more than oil, but would result in the deaths of 10 peopl per year. The
audience was emphatically no...until they learned he was speaking of Natural
gas, a highly explosive, odorless, fuel that actually causes over 600 deaths
per year.
Or what about a new toy, that will kill over 800 people per year and render
more hundreds brain dead? Would you want this in your home? No? Better get
rid of your pool then.
WE can regulate out all danger in life.
|
| 43 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 1 of 43:
|
Sep 10 16:45 UTC 1996 |
If a new fuel cost no more than oil and caused 10 deaths a year, then we
should certainly not have it (assuming you meant 10 additional deaths). I
mean, 10 deaths a year isn't a lot, but it's something, and no advantages
whatsoever have been ascribed to this "new fuel," so since it has only
disadvantages and no advantages it is clearly no dang good. Open and shut.
I don't understand the rest of this either. Action days?
|
birdlady
|
|
response 2 of 43:
|
Sep 10 16:48 UTC 1996 |
I'm with Jan. What are action days?
|
omni
|
|
response 3 of 43:
|
Sep 10 17:21 UTC 1996 |
Ozone action days, at least as I understand them are days when the temp is
over 90. The weather folks on ch 7 say that filling up your ride, or bbq'ing
can damage the ozone layer, and they ask ppl not to do these things for that
day unless you need gas. I think it's a crock because the ppl in eastern
europe with all the steel mills are not thinking about the environment. Maybe
if everyone looked after the planet we would have an ozone layer a little
thicker than it already is.
Maybe Russ can expand on this.
Re 0- I think we are scaring ourselves because we (not the present company)
are failing to educate themselves to get along in our society.
Example- Last week, there was a story about a kid who threw himself out the
window at school. It got the lead. Back in my days at St John Berchman, I had
THE worst teacher on the planet-Ms. Fillipew and she was a bitch who
constantly terrorized me for being too happy. Despite her, I did not toss
myself out the window, but I got used to her, and am stronger for the
experience. Even if I would have flung my self out the window, I still would
have had to go back the next day.
The mother of that kid doesn't know when he'll go back to school. I say he
should go back and get used to her (the teacher) and learn the lesson that
you cannot, no matter how you try, get along with everybody. Someone always
has a problem with you, now don't they?
|
russ
|
|
response 4 of 43:
|
Sep 10 17:57 UTC 1996 |
I doubt that #0 refers to anything even remotely resembling ozone action
days. I suspect that it refers to # of days of life lost as a result of
the action (riding in airplanes or automobiles).
Oil contains carcinogens, natural gas contains almost none. Pollution
from the burning is far cleaner for gas. I bet that the risk assessment
is very lopsidedly in favor of gas.
All the TV show reviewed in #0 shows is that people are innumerate.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 5 of 43:
|
Sep 10 18:43 UTC 1996 |
"Instant" deaths from natural gas are probably much more common than
"instant" deaths from oil (due to what was cited in #0 - explosions).
People do take different views of risks leading to catastrophic versus
leisurely death. For example, it may be (I don't know, but its possible)
that deaths due to malignancies precipitated by flying (higher radition
exposure at great elevations) exceed in number deaths due to plane
crashes. Certainly the public is more concerned about the latter than the
former.
|
russ
|
|
response 6 of 43:
|
Sep 10 18:46 UTC 1996 |
I doubt there's any relationship between air miles and cancer. There
is none between life at higher altitudes and cancer.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 43:
|
Sep 10 19:07 UTC 1996 |
I recall reading there was - at least based on dose response calculations.
They would be hard to detect statistically, since the probability is low -
but so is death by accident in commerical flying. They can't be detected
"statistically" very easily either!
|
russ
|
|
response 8 of 43:
|
Sep 10 20:43 UTC 1996 |
Did you miss the information in item #69? The linear dose-response
model is known to be wrong for low doses of radiation.
|
ajax
|
|
response 9 of 43:
|
Sep 10 22:13 UTC 1996 |
Many instances of irrational fears can be found in government
safety regulations. It generally reflects the public's irrational
risk analysis. Recent anti-terrorism proposals are a good example,
at least based on past damage caused by domestic terrorism. The
public is afraid of terrorist attacks, even though they're more
likely to die slipping on a patch of ice.
The "action days" in #0, I'm guessing, are the number of days
off the average American's life due to various causes. The data
isn't sufficiently well defined to draw meaningful conclusions.
Re 8, radiation exposure is notably higher for people who work
in airplanes than for those who work on the ground. Whether or
not the linear dose response is wrong at low levels of radiation
(I heard that in the 80's, but thought it was a controversial
theory), that's a general principle, and doesn't say anything
about the particular case of airline employees. I assume you're
not trying to claim that radiation exposure to airline employees
is definitely beneficial.
|
russ
|
|
response 10 of 43:
|
Sep 10 23:34 UTC 1996 |
(DAMN this network *and* Grex! I have tried FOUR TIMES to enter this
response, and EVERY TIME I have lost the response due to network
failures, and vi on Grex will NOT recover the file!)
Re #9: We don't know. However, people living at high altitude
(such as in Denver, CO) have less air shielding them from cosmic
rays than people living at sea level. They also tend to have
lower, not higher, rates of cancer. There is also the negative
relationship between low levels of radon and lung cancer.
This pretty much demolishes the linear dose-response model of
radiation exposure to cancer. The only possible way to salvage
it is to find some cancer-inhibiting influence which just
happens to be distributed just like cosmic ray muons or radon...
which is pretty unlikely. The conclusion we can reach now is
that there is a threshold below which the risk is zero, *at most*.
(The risk may be negative at some point, yielding a benefit.)
So, given that the linear dose-response model is known to be
wrong at low doses, the question remains: do air travellers
get sufficient radiation, or radiation so distributed in time,
to push them over the threshold for cancer? The only answer
we have at this time is "We don't know". I'm not aware of
any evidence to show that there is any risk, and there have
been enough people flying enough hours in jetliners over the
last 30+ years that any large effect would be apparent already.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 43:
|
Sep 11 03:32 UTC 1996 |
I said nothing about a linear dose-response curve. I presume the estimates
were done by intelligent scientists using correct does-response curves.
Do you have a reference to a difference of opinion on the estimates?
You have to correct for a lot of things to compare cancer rates of
Denverites with Ann Arborites, including other pollution sources, life-styles,
diets, etc. In fact, after all that is done - the uncertainties will probably
not make the increased cancer rates from radiation alone statistically
significant. That does not mean it does not occur - just that it is buried
in statistical "noise". I will submit the hypothesis that the increased death
rate overall due to air travel radiation is greater than the overall death
rate due to airline accidents. Realize that the increased death rate due
to air travel is *also* a (nearly?) undetectable blip on the total death
rate from all causes.
|
nsiddall
|
|
response 12 of 43:
|
Sep 11 05:48 UTC 1996 |
That was a surprisingly interesting and complex topic for a network
tv program. I saw part of it. Of course, the presentation was a bit
simple-minded. The way he presented that natural gas question didn't
provide the information you would need to do a cost-benefit analysis,
but the audience reaction was fascinating, and did illustrate the point
very well. My thought, as I listened to it, was "ok, 10 deaths; now
what are the advantages of this fuel to compare that with; I need to
know more about its price, characteristics, etc." And that made me
think right away, "so far, this stuff sounds like natural gas." So
I spotted the trick. But judging from the audience muttering, a lot
of people were thinking "Ten innocent people killed! How horrible!
Life is precious! This must be prevented... and didn't get beyond
that.
It's a shame that more people can't deal with probabilty logic, or
understand Russ's statement (whether he's right or not) about the
dangers of extrapolating from a linear approximation. But it's really
shocking that so much popular sentiment, and public policy, is based
on no analytical capacity whatsoever. You shouldn't need to know any
math, or study economics, to grasp the idea that resources are limited,
and choices must be made. I blame tv, to some extent, for the limited
analytical ability of the American public. And the press, too--no matter
what the story, they need "human interest," so they find a weeping mother
to interview. People get some kind of emotional fix, and aren't even
encouraged to process any information.
By the way, Russ--there's a real elitist general argument in favor of
intrusive government bureaucracies: People are just too stupid to take
care of themselves. Sometimes I feel that way.
|
russ
|
|
response 13 of 43:
|
Sep 11 14:53 UTC 1996 |
Re #11: You said "based on dose-response calculations" in #7.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 43:
|
Sep 11 15:20 UTC 1996 |
Yes, but I did not say *linear* dose response calculations. You did.
|
russ
|
|
response 15 of 43:
|
Sep 11 15:30 UTC 1996 |
The linear model is used almost universally, even at low doses where
there is very strong evidence that it is wrong. If those calculations
were not done using the faulty linear model, please specify what model
they did use.
|
tao
|
|
response 16 of 43:
|
Sep 11 19:32 UTC 1996 |
re 12: Well said. It's amazing how lazy many people are, in
relying on the media to spoon-feed them information.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 43:
|
Sep 11 21:42 UTC 1996 |
Consult http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/RIC/contentsF.html
|
russ
|
|
response 18 of 43:
|
Sep 11 22:03 UTC 1996 |
Why don't you summarize, since you're trying to make a point.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 43:
|
Sep 12 05:22 UTC 1996 |
I thought you were interested. I made my point earlier.
|
ajax
|
|
response 20 of 43:
|
Sep 12 05:57 UTC 1996 |
Here's a quick summary: cancer risk from moderate and high dose-levels
are pretty well agreed upon. Cancer risk at low doses are greatly
disputed. The book in question argues against the idea of a "safe
dose or dose-rate," based on research on human cancer rates. About 40
of the book's several hundred pages are on the web, including some
of the more interesting chapters, including "Disproof of Any Safe
Dose or Dose-Rate of Ionizing Radiation with Respect to Induction
of Cancer in Humans."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 43:
|
Sep 12 15:15 UTC 1996 |
Thanks, Rob. Somewhere in there is info on, or reference to, dose-response
relations at low doses. I didn't see any allusion to the *linear*
dose-response relation that Russ doesn't like, but the real point is that
there is apparently no *lowest* dose below which malignancies are not
induced. Therefore the malignancy rate from radiation at high elevations
is greater than at low elevations, even if it can't be found statistically
because of small samples and everything else not being the same. (I got a
second wind... ;->)
|
russ
|
|
response 22 of 43:
|
Sep 12 19:12 UTC 1996 |
Total malignancy rate is lower at high elevations. It is quite
significant statistically, I understand. Try again.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 23 of 43:
|
Sep 12 19:19 UTC 1996 |
While this suggests that the linear theory is at least incomplete,
there are certainly more variations to being at higher elevations
than increase in radiation. Maybe thinner air causes a reduction
in malignancy, and that effect is stronger than the increased radiation
effect.
|
russ
|
|
response 24 of 43:
|
Sep 12 20:10 UTC 1996 |
Bingo, if that's all there was to it... but proximity to the magnetic
pole also gives more radiation exposure, and people in northern Canada
don't have higher cancer rates. (Subatomic particles travel more
easily along magnetic lines of force than across them, so they reach
the surface more easily near the poles. THey also cause auroras
a lot more. ;-)
|
