Shedding some light on the "trauma" of perceived risk from radiation

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

RADSAFERs:



Last year  (I think it was) I was roundly chastised and vilified by several 

RADSAFE posts because I said that being exposed to, say, spent fuel shipments, 

or even TMI, wasn't "trauma" and therefore I doubted people thus exposed would 

suffer post-traumatic stress disorder, and if they felt stressed, maybe they 

should get over it.  (Everybody who now has steam coming out of his or her 

ears: calm down and read on).



Now it appears that there is actual evidence, from  studies totally 

unconnected with ionizing radiation, that I might have a point.  I refer readers to an 

article by Malcolm Gladwell in the latest New Yorker



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?041108fa_fact1



The article is titled "Getting Over It."  Here is a brief passage:



"we suffer from what Wilson and Gilbert [two psychologists cited in the 

article] call an impact bias: we always assume that our emotional states will last 

much longer than they do.  we forget that other experiences will compete for 

our attention and emotions.  We forget that our psychological immune system 

will kick in and take away the sting of adversity. 'When I talk about our 

research, I say to people: I'm not telling you bad things don't hurt' Gilbert says, 

'...It would be perverse to say that having a child or spouse die is not a big 

deal. All I'm saying is that the reality doesn't meet the expectation.'"



When someone speaks as an anti-nuke at a hearing, his or her emotions are 

tuned to that event and the individual may truly believe that he or she suffered 

some trauma.  But (1) there was no physical trauma nor external evidence of 

any, and (2) after the hearing, other experiences will certainly claim that 

individual's attention.



Thought this might be of interest.



Ruth









Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com