Talk:Radiophobia

Questionable wording[edit]

"Fear of radiation is natural, since it presents clear danger;" — I think this statement should be qualified a bit. Radiation, per se, does not present a "clear danger" (light bulbs radiate, but they do not cause harm in the sense meant); fear of the hazards of highly-radioactive sources is reasonable, but I don't know if it is natural (it doesn't come "naturally", it comes via a lot of discussions of what radiation is, what the hazards are, how it works, etc.). --Fastfission 16:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Quiestionable Wording == / Bias. "Attempts to downplay the danger of radiation by stigmatizing the opponents of nuclear plants and nuclear tests with the label of "phobiacs" took place in the USA" I find this a biased statement in that it implies that most people are underestimating the risk of radiation.

People cited "a major radiation" leak from a U.S. reactor, although the leak was so small that it could be replicated by exposure to bricks. Since most people do not get cancer from sleeping next to bricks for one night, it seems to me that the people as a whole overestimate the risk of radiation and especailly other dangers associated with Nuclear Power.

There has never been a single person killed in a Nuclear reactor, while there are hundreds of people killed in fossil fuel plants regularly. And pollution of the air by the use of coal power plants is estimated by U.S. federal agencies to cause thousands of deaths per year in a much more traceable fashion than linking a cancer death to a sum of radiation leak much smaller than one would recieve from the Sun.

==Quiestionable Wording== .

"Attempts to downplay the danger of radiation by stigmatizing the opponents of nuclear plants and nuclear tests with the label of "phobiacs" took place in the USA"

Given the poor safety record of the nuclear power industy, does not this remain an honest statement highlighting how most people have a reasonable estimate of the clear and ever-present dangers of radiation?

Wikipedia please note: I am not a Bot

Fear of radios[edit]

What about the fear of radios? What's that called? 169.157.227.82 13:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Aristotle, it is called Ραδιόφωνοφοβία , but I cannot google it. 00:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladnadruk (talk • contribs)

Thanks, coincidentally I added mention of earlier uses of "radiophobia" to the article yesterday, with a few citations. --Danimations (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

Is it just me or is this article biased? --97.84.161.223 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Bravo[edit]

Added the Castle Bravo and psychological/artistic fallout from the incident. In examining phobias, it is important to remember that the psychology of a phobia is independent of objective assessment. By its very nature, a phobia is a subjective reaction to perceived threat, not a rational reaction based on documented risk level. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.201 (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Radiophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828090108/http://honoluluweekly.com/archives/coverstory%202004/2-25-04%20Bravo%20shot/Bravo%20shot.html to http://www.honoluluweekly.com/archives/coverstory%202004/2-25-04%20Bravo%20shot/Bravo%20shot.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article in a Taylor & Francis publication, 2017[edit]

This article may be useful for article expansion. An interested editor will need a Taylor & Francis subscription from the Wikipedia Library in order to access the full text though. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2016.1269823?needAccess=true --Danimations (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we provide a clearer definition?[edit]

The intro paragraph describes radiophobia as "the fear of ionizing radiation", however it then goes on to talk a lot about radio (RF) waves, which I thought were clearly in the non-ionizing range. Can someone help provide more clarity on this? -- SimonEast (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Reasonable Fear of Radiation[edit]

Radiophobia The term is also used to describe the opposition to the use of nuclear technology (i.e. nuclear power) arising from "concerns disproportionately greater than actual risks would merit."

Far from being fact-based, is not this statement an opinion of someone pushing a Pro-nuclear agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.174 (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]