Berkeley, stop the pseudoscience

In summary, Berkeley passed a cellphone right to know law that requires warning signs about radiation exposure when using electronic devices. The law is meant to protect children, but conspiracy theorists are protesting because there is no hidden danger to uncover.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Look, phone! Must draft law. Better now.
 
  • #4
It's also illegal to bring radioactive material into Berkeley. Even one disintigration. Oh, and tritium exit signs are mandated.
 
  • #5
Vanadium 50 said:
It's also illegal to bring radioactive material into Berkeley. Even one disintigration. Oh, and tritium exit signs are mandated.
Problem solved, then - no computing device, phone included, must be allowed in the area.
 
  • #6
I guess one more won't matter, California is swamped in a sea of junk generic warning signs to fend off attacking lawyers.
http://www.wlf.org/upload/07-27-07halko.pdf

Disneyland_Prop_65_Warning_crop.jpg
 
  • #7
Oh my, this sounds really dangerous - they should close off that place to children at least.
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd
  • #8
Warning: Viewing this post will result in radiation exposure.
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
Warning: Viewing this post will result in radiation exposure.

Just typing that message in California causes exposure.
14806516?region=US&size=600x400.jpg
 
  • #10
Vanadium 50 said:
It's also illegal to bring radioactive material into Berkeley. Even one disintigration. Oh, and tritium exit signs are mandated.
Off with their heads.

7aaf04166453514caea582107c1dbb02.jpg
 
  • #12

Annex One... It is almost identical to Earth, except that there is no night--sunlight is constant.
14806516?region=US&size=600x400.jpg
 
  • #13
OCR said:
14806516?region=US&size=600x400.jpg
That picture is so disturbing.
 
  • #14
I found this old paper online last night:

https://www.aarst.org/proceedings/1990/1990_09_Startling_Radon_Risk_Comparisons.pdf

The point of it was to compare the dangers of radon gas to other dangers in a way that would get people's attention so they would radon-proof their homes. As it says, people are scared of nuclear power plants, but apathetic about radon. The author is not sure why, but wanted to put some ideas out about how to make people more frightened of radon, simply because the evidence is that it kills thousands a year.

I think what's going on is that conspiracy theorists thrive on denial of the conspiracy by "authorities" and they lose interest when the announcement of danger is forthright and insistent. The thrill, for them, is in uncovering secrets someone is trying hard to hide. They don't get worked up about the dangers of radon because no one is trying to hide them, but the whole cell phone denial of danger has that sweet smell of "cover-up" that is so alluring.
 
  • #15
zoobyshoe said:
I found this old paper online last night:

https://www.aarst.org/proceedings/1990/1990_09_Startling_Radon_Risk_Comparisons.pdf

The point of it was to compare the dangers of radon gas to other dangers in a way that would get people's attention so they would radon-proof their homes. As it says, people are scared of nuclear power plants, but apathetic about radon. The author is not sure why, but wanted to put some ideas out about how to make people more frightened of radon, simply because the evidence is that it kills thousands a year.

I think what's going on is that conspiracy theorists thrive on denial of the conspiracy by "authorities" and they lose interest when the announcement of danger is forthright and insistent. The thrill, for them, is in uncovering secrets someone is trying hard to hide. They don't get worked up about the dangers of radon because no one is trying to hide them, but the whole cell phone denial of danger has that sweet smell of "cover-up" that is so alluring.
I think it is simpler than that: with radon, there is no one to blame, so no one to benefit from covering-up the danger. That explains the lack of conspiracy theory.

The "why people don't care" issue is broader and while it is probably partly the above, it is also likely just the fact that radon is a silent/latent danger.
 
  • #16
I'm inclined toward Don Quixote syndrome as a motivation: nobly saving the world against the powers that be (ego gratification). If there are no windmills to conjure as dragons to slay (faux evil products), no ego gratification. Without dragons the Don might be forced to confront an absence of productive activity, i.e. actually designing or building phones, businesses, and, well, we can't have that. Unfortunately Berkeley has turned the tale on its head, embraced the crazy and put the Don in charge of the kingdom.
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd
  • #17
You are being unfair to the Ingenious Gentleman here, his quest may have been fanciful but it was nobly inspired : )
 
  • #18
Aye
 

1. What is the purpose of the "Berkeley, stop the pseudoscience" campaign?

The purpose of the "Berkeley, stop the pseudoscience" campaign is to raise awareness about the dangers of pseudoscience and promote critical thinking and scientific literacy.

2. What is considered pseudoscience?

Pseudoscience refers to any belief or claim that is presented as scientific but lacks evidence, is not supported by scientific methods, and is not accepted by the scientific community.

3. Why is it important to stop pseudoscience?

Pseudoscience can be harmful as it can mislead people, promote false information, and prevent progress in scientific research and understanding. It is important to stop pseudoscience to protect public health and promote accurate knowledge.

4. How can individuals help stop pseudoscience?

Individuals can help stop pseudoscience by being critical of information they encounter, seeking out reliable and credible sources, and promoting scientific literacy and education.

5. What is the role of scientists in stopping pseudoscience?

Scientists have a responsibility to communicate their research accurately and combat pseudoscience by educating the public about the scientific method and evidence-based reasoning. They can also engage in public debates and debunk false claims and misinformation.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
2
Replies
66
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
826
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
894
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
992
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top