ideastream science

In addition to perturbing an individual's attention-focus (toward e.g. the buffering of correlations that look in/out from skin, family or culture), unscoped electronic-broadcasts (in any of various forms) can also affect the choice of concepts in terms of which one thinks. Folks unfamiliar with the power of concept-sets to leave blind spots in our awareness (as well as to manipulate neolithic-feelings) may be especially vulnerable to this effect.

Examples of "broadcasts willy-nilly" (i.e. communications to everyone regardless of their mandate) that often do this include:

• xenophobic, fiscal, and/or territorial threat broadcasts, 
• health-risk warnings not accompanied by observational data,
• cartoonifications of individual people as well as lifeform types, etc.

For this reason education in most fields should likely include an explicit discussion of tools for choosing one's concepts and models, as well as the more reliably covered model-based skills of  e.g. informal reasoning and algorithmic implementation.

StL Beacon quote

"Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself. The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations."
-- Joseph Pulitzer in The North American Review, May 1904

Of course, the means by which ideas travel may have changed a bit between then and now...

ideastream pH

The bloodstream in multicelled animals facilitates asynchronous communication between cells and organ systems.  Even though each end-user can put out, and read in, what it wants from the bloodstream there exist mechanisms to regulate total concentrations of things like hydrogen ions, salt, glucose, etc.

This suggests an interesting way that governments might regulate constructive use of electronic ideastreams without interfering with either consumer choice or freedom of expression.  Look for more on possible specific strategies in this context, here, in the days ahead...

fact free reporting

Does a dispute about topics (e.g. brain cancer caused by cellphones) become newsworthy just because a familiar name brings it up?  Should competent news organizations respect the critical observer in each of their subscribers by referencing relevant observations (e.g. the decline in brain cancer as cell phones proliferate) when technical topics come up in a context whose primary value (for one party or another) may be to pull neolithic strings?

imagination

Can you imagine living with a ton of air sitting on you,
in spacetime so curvy it's tough to jump higher than a meter,
among objects whose spin-rate must increase in steps,
with moving charges that contract enough to levitate,
while you move timeward at nearly the speed of light
relying on a hierarchy of hedges against uncertainty
to keep carbon in the sun-powered living crust on your planet
from returning to its early solar-system gaseous CO₂ form?
You may know someone who does...

meltdown math

Does it help to say "the radiation was 1000 times normal" without saying where and for how long, or how it compares to everyday differences e.g. in visiting the mountains, taking a plane ride, or getting an X-ray?

radiation sources

In that context it might be useful to list here some numbers for various kinds of everyday exposure to ionizing radiation in terms of both exposure rate and of total dose, where one equivalent Joule (J) of absorbed energy per kilogram (kg) of target mass is also known as 1 Sievert (Sv) or 100 Röntgen equivalents for man (rem). We might start with total doses of different types of radiation for various events.

Table 1: Various ionizing radiation doses

Activity	Absorbed dose [μJ/kg]	Equivalent Dose [μSv]	Equivalent Dose [rem]
dental X-ray	10	10	0.001
foot/arm X-ray	10	10	0.001
cosmic rays for year		270	0.027
earth bkgd. for year		280	0.028
mammogram	3,000	3,000	0.3
airline crew for year		9,000	0.9
GI X-ray series	14,000	14,000	1.4
nuclear worker for year		20,000	2
poisoning effects		1,000,000	100

radioactive transport

This might be good place for notes on the expected reduction with distance of radiative dose, and of air-borne and water-borne contamination as well. They might help answer questions about how much you should worry about stuff happening down the road, and/or on the other side of the planet.
For instance, radiation from a localized specimen will fall off as one over distance squared (or faster if there are absorbers in the way). Thus if the dose rate is one rem/hour at 1 meter away, at 10 meters away it will be 0.01 rem/hour or less. That means that if the source of radioactivity stays put, distance between you and it will have a very powerful effect.

On the other hand, lateral transport of radioactive materials away from a point e.g. on the earth's surface may at best result in concentrations that fall off as one over distance. If the flow is not radially outward but unidirectional, the fall-off will be greater for those out of the flow path but less for those in that path. Thus if the outflow of radioactive stuff gives a 1% concentration a kilometer away from the source, the average concentration 10 kilometers away should be only down to 0.1%.

effects of radiation

Similarly the risks of ill-affect associated with the various types of exposure might be of interest to folks who want to decide for themselves what is useful information and what is not. Short of the somatic damage caused by very large (e.g. ≈ 1 equivalent J/kg) doses of radiation, radiation might e.g. increase one's chance to get cancer but by how much?

Estimates e.g. for the effect of 1-rem computer tomography (CT) scans might be something like 4 cases of cancer (developing after a decade or more) for every 10,000 scans. Thus the odds of getting cancer from a CT scan may be less than the odds of throwing 11 coins at once and finding that all of them have landed heads up, i.e. less than 1 in 2¹¹ = 2048 times. If you need the scan, that chance may be one you can afford to take but regardless it should probably be your call.

nuclear meltdowns

Fission-energy is a form of ordered-energy from long-dead stars that's found in all atoms much heavier than Iron-58 and Nickel-62. The only way we know to release it is to exploit the neutron-mediated herd-behavior of certain big atoms like Uranium-235.

Fissioning releases that ordered-energy by breaking atoms almost randomly into two fragments with energies that correspond to heat at about 200MeV/(2k_B) ≈ 10¹²K. The resulting motion warms up the atom's surroundings, including any coolant being used to pull the heat out for use running an electric generator.

This is an abundant form of ordered-energy that doesn't create green-house gases. To the extent that we make it safe and sustainable, fission energy is an important part of our future.

One of the two fission fragments usually has an atomic weight between 75 and 105, the other an atomic weight between 150 and 130. One inconvenient truth is that these fragments have a mess of chemical & radioactive properties.

The other problem is that once you get a herd of such atoms to start fissioning, the process may be controlled only by aggressively cooling the herd. Otherwise it melts and allows the release of both heat and fragments to get out of hand.

This is not new, as meltdown of naturally-occurring reactions like this are present in the geological record. If you have ideas for designing reactors so that gravity helps melting to disperse the critical mass, this might come in handy for future reactor construction!

All told, we take our chances with all forms of ordered-energy both because: (a) we need it to survive and because (b) it is fun to waste. If one looks at the numbers, the ratio of benefit to both: (i) cost & (ii) risk for fission-energy is quite good in spite of our media's passion for sensationalizing it.

If it helps with the overall picture of regional land-use, therefore, folks who assume the risk of living near reactors should get a break. That's mainly because space nearby a reactor will most likely be fine, but might accidentally lose its property value and habitability for decades.