Today doctors state that wearing a facemask is the right thing to do, but going back only a few months expert opinion was the opposite.
Here is an explanation I read last week on the fivethirtyeight site. “The data that existed on mask effectiveness largely dealt with medical respirators and surgical masks. It wasn’t clear how protective a cloth mask would be.”
Initially the experts thought “wearing masks might lead people to feel more safe than they actually were – and make choices that increased their risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19.” The change in stance came “not because the evidence has significantly improved,” but because a sentiment spread that to wear one expressed caring about other people. The switch on mask wearing was based not on science but on a shift of the assumption about the perceived psychological effect – overconfidence vs. awareness. “Behavioral norms also matter, regardless of how much evidence backs them up.”
But once the behavioral norms machine starts moving, everything else including common courtesy and tolerance toward differing opinions go by the way side.” Most service workers where I shop wear a mask. Some don’t, but they practice social distancing; in my state/county it’s still a personal choice. A niece working in retail reports that wearing her mask all day at work gets extremely uncomfortable, but if she takes it off, customers will pull down their own masks to yell in her face how inconsiderate she is.
From the above article: “a public health and disease expert who is worried that mask effectiveness is being over-hyped, has also found himself threatened and harassed” by email and on social media for merely expressing doubt about “how effective DIY cloth masks are.”
This passionate and aggressive defense of opinion and unwillingness to consider alternative ideas came to mind as I read the next article in Wired.
A potential solution to slowing and possibly solving climate change could be on the horizon. A couple of companies are teaming with the Department of Energy to develop an idea that has been around for a while, but was formerly too cost prohibitive, tristructural isotropic (Triso) fuel. It is made by sealing small particles of a mixture of low enriched uranium and oxygen inside a protective shell. The fuel can be used to power small nuclear reactors. “Not only will these reactors be smaller and more efficient than current nuclear power plants, but their designers claim they’ll be virtually meltdown-proof,” as the particle can withstand temperatures far above the limit beyond which the reactor will automatically shut down.
Nuclear is by far the best solution to carbon-free power generation. It is more efficient and has a much smaller ecological footprint than wind and solar. And, Forbes reminds us, “Study after study in top scientific journals find that nuclear power plants are far and away the safest way to make reliable electricity.” And with the danger of meltdown eliminated, “rather than needing to have miles of open space around a reactor, future plants running on triso fuel could be situated close to their users.” NASA is considering it for nuclear powered spacecraft.
This could be a dream come true with houses, factories and refueling stations for electric cars powered by meltdown-proof, non-polluting reactors. But in the blink of an eye, opponents will dub it the nightmare of the future with dire warnings of radiation poisoning and other terrifying predictions, accusing proponents of putting profit above caring for others. Can we count on the American public to consider the science before flying into a panic?
Will “behavior norms” quickly develop and, like the Germans who thought it was smart to phase out their nuclear power program in favor of dependency on coal and Russian oil and gas, will Americans likely reject it, harassing defenders and voting out politicians. Based on other behavioral evidence, that’s my fear.
