March 12, 2011

• The expert-nonexpert divide

  The tragic events in Sendai, Japan have left us with a glut of information as everyone focuses on the crisis. In particular, the nuclear reactor at Fukushima was in danger of meltdown, something that understandably attracted a lot of interest. One part of the discussion and presentation of these events has been a little frustrating for me.

  On the one hand, I only have myself to blame. I didn’t want to take the extra time to dig through all the details of the Fukushima Daiichi reactor and report them. This was partly because I didn’t have the time and partly because re-learning the precise details on how many grays will kill a man, etc. seemed like a lot of work (and was beyond the scope of a summary article anyhow.)

  On the other hand, I have actually taken Nuclear Physics, and I had to write papers about the safety of reactors and what can go wrong. I went inside a live reactor, I studied Chernobyl case history, and so forth. Perhaps because of the work I put in, it irks me when there is wild speculation by people who patently don’t remember their science classes very well. More precisely, it irks me when unfounded speculation is presented alongside verified and well-thought out scientific assessment and given roughly the same weight.

  I know this problem is universal. People get excited in a time of crisis, and rumors fly. Even proper statements get distorted, chopped off, and reworded in unfortunate ways until they no longer convey the same truth as the original. Still, it troubles me. It’s bad enough to deal with the possibility of a nuclear incident; misinformation and hysteria on top of that is not going to help anyone.

  Anyway, have some donation links: Global Giving | World Vision | International Medical Corps

  EDIT: It turns out that the Boing Boing science editor had the same thought, but instead of bitching about it, actually went and did some research, then cranked out an article. Kudos to her.

  • 6:08 pm
  • 1 Comment