Internet Trolls are a Varied Bunch

I recently read an article on radiation leaks from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant and the effect they could have on the environment.  Being a nuclear engineer with years of experience in this field, both studying it in school and working at a nuclear power plant, I felt I should provide some context to the situation, since the mere mention of a radiation leak causes mass panic.  There were a number of people insisting on the existence of cover-ups, mass ecological disaster, radioactive wastelands, the destruction of mankind, and other equally ridiculous theories.  The only thing missing was someone blaming Fukushima on aliens.  All that was needed was some good, hard, evidence and a clearly thought out explanation, right?

The human brain, divided into the primary
lobes:  frontal (pink), parietal (green), and
occipital (blue). CC Image originally from
the Gutenberg Encyclopedia.

Logic and Reason are Hard to Find in Comment Sections

Well, as you probably can guess at this point, my fantasy of the whole world listening to reason, objectively absorbing and sorting this new information and developing a better, unbiased view of the world did not materialize.  Instead, what I got was a verbal tirade from multiple people, accusing me of being a corporate shill, because the nuclear industry only survives based on the comments section of nuclear-related articles on the internet.  My information was deemed a corporate lie, concocted to sway the innocent public that is being manipulated by "Big Nuclear," which has a goal of destroying the world through the continued operation of nuclear reactors worldwide. (Let's ignore the fact that nuclear power plants are owned and operated by large utilities that have a stake in many sources of energy, including fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables.)  I admittedly got a bit upset and probably responded in a manner less calm, cool, and collected as I should have, but no matter how much evidence I supplied, my claims were dismissed outright as evil propaganda.

When provided evidence of the very small to zero effect the Fukushima disaster would have on deaths provided by the World Health Organization, an organization chartered and funded by the United Nations, one person responded that I shouldn't support my arguments with research done by organizations paid off by industry.  I don't even know how to respond to that.  The WHO is not only NOT a corporate entity or funded by corporations, it is an international organization funded by the UN who's mission is to be a non-politicized entity created to, well, I cannot say it better than they do:

"WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends."

 -World Health Organization About WHO page

The flag of the World Health Organization.

The suggestion that the WHO is in the pockets of utility companies worldwide must be one of the more insane conspiracy theories I have read in quite a while.  It is up there with the people who say the moon landing was faked, or the US government is behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (and behind AIDS, and the JFK assassination...).  These are people who obviously don't listen to reason, so there is really no hope of convincing them that their opinions on nuclear power are misguided and their facts are completely wrong.

All Governments are Evil

But of course it did not stop there.  I figured that these people were not likely to have a sudden change of heart and agree with me, but at least the normal people who were reading these comments would not only see the crazy comments and assume that the anti-nuclear crowd's opinion was the only one around.  So with that in mind, I did my best to not get upset by the increasingly nonsensical comments, and instead I tried to systematically disprove each claim by the anti-nuclear commenters, so at least there was a small amount of reason interspersed within the nonsense.

Well I can't say whether I was able to help out any readers, but I know for a fact I did not help convince the people I was replying to.  Since they didn't seem to go for the data provided by the World Health Organization, I dug up some more data on the effects of Fukushima and radiation, this time from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Academy of Sciences.  I mean, EVERY government institution can't be paid off by evil corporations, bent on destroying the entire planet through pollution, right?  Apparently they can.  At this point I realized I was dealing with true conspiracy theorists, not just misguided environmentalists who have gotten emotionally attached to their beliefs.

Intelligent People Can Be Illogical

I became instantly intrigued.  How could an adult who obviously is able to pay for their own electricity, internet connection, and computer (or at least find a friend or parent to provide these), function in society when they are obviously so irrational?  One particular thread of comments back and forth between me and another commenter irked me in just the right way, so I decided to try and look them up.  Using just their screen name and their account picture, I was able to find this person's Facebook account (it is really amazing what you can do with just a couple pieces of data), which was open to the public.  From this I discovered (also confirmed later on) that this commenter has a PhD from an Ivy-League school in Physical Science.  Seriously.  I was flabbergasted.

My assumption when talking to someone who cannot base their argument on facts and reason is that either they do not see why what they are arguing is not logical, or they do not understand the concept well enough.  This cannot, or at least should not, be the case for an Ivy-League PhD graduate.  The ability to reason and use data to influence a conclusion rather than a conclusion to influence data (revealed versus rational knowledge) is at the heart (or should be) of a college degree, especially a degree in the sciences, especially for someone who has a PhD.  People often say that the reason for school is to learn how to learn, that is, not just learn facts, but learn the process of gathering data from the world, processing it, and generating knowledge on your own.  Without this, all you have in your head are facts with no context.

I do not know if this person is an anomaly, if universities around the country are failing to teach reason, or if they are passing people who don't grasp the concept, but this is a problem.  I expect that any adult I hold a conversation with can at least understand the concept of fact-based decision-making, even if they are not knowledgeable in a particular field.  That goes double for anyone with a college degree, and ten times for someone with their masters degree or PhD.  That is what academia is: data-driven theories, fact-based learning, and a community that holds themselves to a higher standard.  Somewhere along the line, something failed.

I don't mean to single out this individual, and I certainly am not actually calling this person stupid, because it is apparent they are not.  For all that this person seems to be lacking in terms of forming rational arguments, they still managed to get through nearly a decade of schooling at a university, and that is not easy.  I commend them for their hard work and dedication to their field of study.  But I cannot help but wonder how it is possible for someone who, based on their education history, can ignore everything they have been taught and blindly follow their beliefs, dismissing every dissenting opinion as corporate lobbying, and accuse every major science-based government organization of spewing corporate-funded garbage.  Does it have something to do with the anonymity of the internet, or does this person believe what they are saying?  I imagine, at least in this case, it is the latter, and judging by their other comments and posts online, they are very angry about something.

Controlling Emotion is Not Always Easy

There is a lot of passion for their opinions, which is good, though one has to be careful not to let that passion cloud your judgement.  The STEM fields have been pushing hard lately to get more children interested in science and other technical fields by making them exciting and fun.  This really is the only way to get a child interested in any subject, but it is funny because these are the same fields where emotion can seriously hamper your work if directed inappropriately.  A scientist must be excited by the scientific process itself, not any particular result any research might generate.  A climatologist should be passionate about learning more about the climate and the causes and effects of different weather patterns.  A climatologist should not be passionate about results of studies that say the Earth is heating up and sea levels will rise if mankind doesn't do something to stop it.  That is not to say they shouldn't care about those things, but their emotions should not be tied to those results, because it leads to a bias when someone tries to present a dissenting view.

Confirmation Bias Can be Difficult to Avoid

What I found especially funny is that I agree with much of what this person believes on many other topics.  They are adamantly opposed to teaching creationism in schools, and believe in climate change.  I would absolutely stand with this person if these were the topics of the day.  The argument that evolution is not in the Bible and is in direct contradiction to the word of God is completely anti-science, and the data on climate change is difficult to argue against logically.  This person and I would absolutely agree on both of these fronts.  However, what they do not realize is their militant, hard-line stance on their opinions is just as damaging as those hard-liners on the opposite side.  People are free to act as they please, and if we want to have a shouting match where each opinion entrenches themselves and doesn't listen to the evidence, then we can.  But if people want progress, both sides need to detach their emotions from their opinions and go where the evidence leads.  Having a strong belief in a wrong concept may sound compelling and passionate, but in the end it is just as wrong.

Confirmation bias, that is a tendency for people to believe information that supports their beliefs over information that contradicts them, is prevalent in the world.  Everyone is susceptible to it, myself included.  It is part of our nature to want our opinions to be correct.  This is an emotional response.  But it is also up to us to use our logical brain and think beyond our emotions.  The real world does not run on emotions.  It is all based on cold, calculating math.  Everyone needs to keep this in mind when they get angry at someone with a different opinion than their own.  The other person may be right, they may be wrong.  Regardless, what matters is the implications of the data, not the volume of the person.