Gulp … true confession time. I have not driven a car over the San Francisco Bay Bridge since sometime in 1985. This may not be a very remarkable statement other than the fact that during these 27 years I have lived in the Bay Area, on and off, for about 17 of them. You see, I have a debilitating phobia of bridges. More on this below, but I point it out to simply establish my bona fides as an expert on the topic of fear.
I recently heard fear described as that which we seek to avoid/destroy, while its opposite, passion, is that which we seek to get embrace/protect. The two have a symbiotic, yin/yang, relationship with elements of both existing within the other to varying degrees. As we look at our beliefs, particularly those nominally informed by science, I’m struck by the remarkable role that fear/passion plays in shaping them.
As humans, we seek safety, security, the health and well being of ourselves, our families and future generations. Thus we seek to avoid, we fear, risks or uncertainties that threaten those values. In fact, our brains are wired to instinctively react to such threats in a rapid subconscious manner. Probably coming from ancient survival mechanisms, the aptly named “fight or flight” response is ingrained into our being, and a key element of how we function. There is even some chemistry and biology involved … relax, I won’t (OK , can’t) get too sciency here. But we’ve all experienced the physical reaction to the release of adrenaline into our bodies…the rapid heart rate, sweaty palms etc. This stuff is tangible and real. Just as real is how it affects our belief systems.
One of my favorite examples of this is our fear of…dun dun dun…nuclear radiation (did your palms just moisten?). So, what came to mind the instant you read the last sentence? Fukishima, Chernobyl, nuclear bombs, Iran, contaminated waste sites, and giant radioactive ants? …. Probably. Less likely was life saving medical testing and treatments, carbon free energy, safer food, and space engines. That’s OK, I get it. But we have to own up to something here. The scientific data does not support the level of fear that we have. Some factoids on just one aspect of the issue … average decrease in life expectancy for all exposed atomic-bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is estimated to be less than 4 months … fatalities due to the release of radiation of Fukishima, Three Mile Island and Browns Ferry combined, is 0….Chernobyl, around 60. OK, I know, it’s not that simple, but the point is that the risks posed by nuclear power, and there are indeed risks, need to be viewed in context. For example, about 500,000 people die annually in the US from diseases triggered by air pollution If we take only 1% of that (low, high? … who knows) and attribute it to coal fired power plants, you are looking at 5000 annual deaths, just in the US. Now compare that to the nuclear figures … you may get my point, but I’m guessing you will still hold onto any fears you have of the use of nuclear energy, and its use as an alternative to fossil fuels.
Which brings me back to my friend [sic], the Bay Bridge. As I’ve told folks of my phobia over the years, they often quiz me with questions like, what are you afraid of, what could happen, what is the real risk? These all miss the point, for they assume my fear is based on some rational analysis. In fact, the exact opposite is at play. My fear is completely irrational, deeply subconscious and seemingly impervious to all manners of objective analysis or treatment (several shrinks will attest to this). Now, this is not to suggest that irrational fears are OK, particularly when the consequences of such fears affect more than just the individual. It simply points us to the fact that we need to look much more deeply into the sources of our anxieties. What are we seeking to flee, what are we seeking to protect, and why?
An occasional blog that explores how and why we decide what to believe, and the implications for science education and learning.
