One more OCD question
Hi BRAWM team:
I am happy to report that my client is doing markedly better. Going in the rain, etc, touching things that were made in Japan. Yay! We were talking about future plans and OCD work. One of my client's concerns have to do with the instability of reactor 4 and if there was another earthquake how much of a release to the west coast there would/could be. Since this isnt my area of expertise, I thought I would ask the experts again. The long term goal is for her to feel ok and settled on the west coast even if there was another disaster, but it is nice to have a realistic appraisal of the danger/not danger that we can refer to.
Fish are enough evidence
Poisoned fish are showing up off CA coasts already. Soon it will be clear. I think your client is just a few steps ahead of the general public, but it won't be long before everyone catches up.
While I'm all for helping your client ease her fears in order to function normally and healthily, most likely with exposure therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy... Maybe another important goal is to validate her concerns whether or not you find an expert to validate them. She won't be convinced otherwise - there is plenty of evidence.
OCD is not related to Fukushima concerns
I see this mistake coming up a few times now. Concern about Fukushima is not related to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Perhaps you only intended it as a joke, but others may be misled to believe that they are experiencing a psychological disorder because they are concerned about Fukushima, so this bears mentioning.
One should not relate concern about exposure to radioactivity with suffering from OCD.
It is not a potential symptom of OCD, much less is it a marker for the disorder.
The kind of germs that OCD germ obsessions deal with do not exist in external reality (they may start from a concept closely similar to bacteria or radioactivity, but they quickly change shape into something bizarre and unique in the person's mind), hence the convoluted compulsions that result also do not often correspond to actual health-increasing behaviors.
Unless you have imbued radioactivity with magical properties not remotely supported by any literature, you are not exhibiting anything like an OCD symptom. Typically, but not always, OCD sufferers have enough insight into their own disorder to know that the germs they fear are not connected to the real world in any substantial way. This is especially the case if the suffer has normal to high intelligence. However, despite this knowledge, their brain does not let them stop obsessing about them anyhow. It is a brain dysfunction.
You are concerned, or perhaps even fearful of, radioactivity, and that is not a disorder.
On a related note, "radiophobia" is not an actual disorder at all. It is a term used by nuclear proponents, not psychologists and psychiatrists. You will not find it in the diagnostic manual. It is a highly offensive term when used to discredit the concerns of downwinders (or other nuclear accident victims), which is almost always how it is used.
By the way, in order for something to be a phobia, the fear has to be substantial out of proportion to the danger. If the danger is unknown, it cannot be said that the fear is disproportionate.
Radiation fears CAN be OCD!!
You are just flat out in error saying that radiation can not be a focus of OCD.
As stated above, people with OCD fear germs out of proportion to the actual threat. Germs can pose a threat in large enough quantity, but the OCD patient fears the low quantity of germs found on everyday surfaces. These germs are rendered harmless to us by our immune system. ( Those germs can be quite virulent. Ever see a person with AIDS ravaged by disease? The AIDS virus itself doesn't do that; it only destroys the immune system. Those everyday germs left unchallenged by the immune system can ravage a person ). The OCD fears germs out of proportion to the danger they present.
Radiation is exactly analogous. Radiation in large doses, like germs, can cause serious problems. But also like germs, radiation exposure in a normal part of our everyday lives. Also just as the body has an immune system to ward off germs, the body has a radiation damage repair mechanism to repair the damage caused by radiation. Fearing radiation out of proportion to the risk is also a manifestation of OCD.
For example, BRAWM has shown that the exposures to Fukushima radionuclides was a trivial fraction compared to the normal everyday radiation exposure due to natural sources that we experience everyday, even before Fukushima. However, there have been some who thought this exposure was literally the "end of the world". That is NOT the sign of a mentally healthy mind, and is very much a hallmark of the constellation of OCD symptoms.
If you are not a health professional; please don't offer health advice.
I am a mental health
I am a mental health professional. And yourself?
How many people with OCD have you worked with?
My comment about substantially disproportionate fear to threat was about PHOBIAS, not OCD. Please read carefully!
Potentially, a person who is afraid of something but shows no fantasy elements in their fear and no thought/action fusion, may be experiencing phobia. Then again, the fear may not be incontrovertibly substantially disproportionate, in which case, it is to be simply referred to as "fear." People can and do still see mental health professionals even to help them cope with "fear," (even entirely legitimate, fully appropriate fear) if it is causing them distress or inconvenience. For example, it is entirely reasonable to fear burning buildings, but a firefighter may seek assistance in coping with this fear. Exposure therapy can help with any fear, not just excessive fears.
For a mental health professional to go as far as misunderstanding a fear that is logically grounded (even if excessive, as in the case of a phobia) as a contamination obsession and evidence of OCD, is a very alarming state of affairs regarding quality control in certification in the mental health profession.
It is interesting that the "therapist" in question has stated that his/her attempts to use exposure therapy (as is appropriate for phobias and fears), to treat OCD, which by-and-large does not respond to exposure therapy, due to the organic nature of the disease, and is primarily treated with medications (however, even our best medications today are not associated with a very good prognosis).
OCD is a very serious brain disorder, is not at all like standard phobias or fears, and should not be a term carelessly bandied around.
Exposure therapy IS the main treatment for OCD in the UK
You really have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Exposure therapy (ERP) is the main therapy offered for the treatment of OCD (NICE guidleines specifically state 'OCD') here in the UK. Practitioners in the US ALSO use this type of therapy for OCD. It is called 'Exposure Therapy' or 'Exposure and Response Prevention Therapy' and is the recommended cognitive/behavioural therapy that practitioners should use when dealing with a person with OCD (such as an obsessive fear of something, such as radiation, contaminating them. Radiation contamination is VERY common in OCD sufferers- i've come across that one 100s of times. It involves gradually exposing an individual to their fear and working with them to reduce any compulsions/safety behaviours they may have. ERP for OCD IS exposure therapy.
If you're a mental health professional, how would you not know that?! I mean....how could you have missed that ERP therapy is the main approach for OCD?
I'm not a health professional..
I'm not a health professional. However, I have heard that exposure therapy is used for the treatment of OCD counter to the claims of the "mental health professional" above:
http://www.ocdla.com/blog/exposure-therapy-ocd-anxiety-300
http://ocd.about.com/od/treatment/a/Exposure-Therapy-For-Ocd.htm
In light of the above, I believe our "mental health professional" may be an IMPOSTER
Some stupid anti-nuke is pretending to be a "mental health professional" to bolster their nonexistent credibility.
I didn't say exposure therapy
I didn't say exposure therapy is never used in attempting to treat OCD (though it should never be used as the only aspect of the approach). I said it does not work very well.
However, it is known to be a remarkably effective approach for phobias and fears.
No wonder, then, that his/her client seems to be responding so well to it. I'd wager the client does not have OCD at all.
As to whether fears about radioactivity are qualified to be phobias, it would really depend on the extent of the fear and clear indication that it is disproportionate. Here you can easily become entangled in matters of opinion ("well, it's clear to ME that it's disproportionate, because I am not scared!") and I don't propose to make a firm cut-off. But in general, good practice guidelines are that clinicians err on the conservative side. When in doubt, don't label it as dysfunctional. There are times, however, when it is clear that it is...for example, if an individual were to fear bananas due to potassium, and avoid the fresh fruit aisle at the grocery store as a result, which the individual finds embarrassing, we have a clear phobia. Avoiding the fresh fruit aisle can be an inconvenience, the embarrassment would make it significant enough to warrant attention, and it is fairly indisputable that the fear-based avoidance is not an objective health-preserving behavior.
The same cannot be said where significant controversy exists. In those cases, the therapist does not "take sides." Remember when homosexuality was a disorder? We've learned from that. A therapist is taught that he/she is to err on the conservative side. He/she can still help address any distress a client experiences, but does not assign a label suggesting dysfunction.
Hope that helps clear things up.
Where ate you getting your information from?!
Where do you get your information from?!
Appox 85% of people with OCD respond to exposure therapy. Exposure therapy significantly reduces OCD symptoms and can sometimes bring about a complete cure.
Exposure therapy is the no 1, recommended therapy by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence for the treatment of OCD!
I don't think you're a mental health professional, are you?
What do you suggest for the treatment of OCD then?
Sorry to say that all the most successful and clinically PROVEN treatments for OCD are exposure therapy!!
And I would happily say that this guy's client has typical OCD.
I am the therapist who wrote
I am the therapist who wrote in with the original question. OCD therapy using exposure techniques if highly efficacious. http://ocdtherapist.com/PDFs/Franklinetal2000.pdf
Furthermore, I have not detailed the extent of my client's avoidances. You have no basis to know if the fears are exaggerated or distressing. The behaviors my client exhibits are exaggerated and cause her distress. Furthermore, she has insight that her concerns are disproportionate.
I agree with my client that Fukushima is a real concern. However, the extent of her behaviors are the issue.
Perhaps your client is the
Perhaps your client is the rare case in which concern about Fukushima radioactivity was adopted by someone with OCD into her existing disorder. I haven't seen this yet myself but I acknowledge this is theoretically possible. If that is the case with your client, I apologize for being quite so acerbic and dismissive of this claim. Let me explain where I was coming from:
Because I can see that concern over radioactivity is a highly controversial issue, I balked at how the subject was treated - as if the concern and the diagnosis commonly go together. Part of my concern is that if Fukushima were to yield a psychological dysfunction of any kind, phobia or PTSD would be much more likely (especially for those in Japan) - therefore I assumed a thread labelled an "OCD question about Fukushima" was some layperson's misuse of the term to derogate themselves - but this was not what riled me up.
My major beef, however, is really about our profession being co-opted into marginalization of any group, intentionally or unintentionally. Whenever we have two strongly opposed factions, attempts to discredit by questioning the other group's "sanity" is almost always present. To the layperson, when we assign a disorder label to something, this is tantamount to discrediting the related view expressed and declaring it "insane". While I know you know this is not true, there is some truth to the perception, in that we are labeling something about the combination of thoughts and behaviors as as dysfunctional in some way. This makes our diagnoses extremely politically influential.
Especially in cases of controversy in which a) there is a large economic discrepancy between the warring factions, and the less-powerful faction is the one that is being targeted by "insanity" stigmatization, and/or b) the stigmatizing of one group can clearly have strong economic advantages for another group, I am careful to look for airtight evidence of dysfunction before labeling it, and I am very clear about how narrowly my label applies. We may not wish to be political, but we work within a highly politicized world, and our diagnoses are co-opted for these purposes on a very regular basis.
I'm not saying that it's impossible that someone with OCD could incorporate what they've learned about Fukushima into their disorder matrix, but rather that this is not going to be the case in the vast majority of cases, and if we address concerns about that one person without pointing that out, what we are allowing to happen is for our profession to be misused in the form of: "Concerns about Fukushima are invalid. As you can see, they have all been determined to actually be symptoms of OCD. Policy-makers and the public at large can feel free not to judge these concerns on their own merits. The mental health profession has deemed them dysfunctional."
I realize that this is the furthest thing from what you have said! But this is how our de-contextualized comments about clients in these sort of complex political situations are used. Our profession is not meant to be used for the political stigmatization of minority views. Unfortunately, they are, and it's up to us to avoid saying things that can be twisted in such a way.
Now THAT'S a slippery slope...
Now that's a slippery slope. Evidently you are saying that mental health professionals have to consider the political implications of their diagnosis. If a patient has OCD symptoms involving an excessive fear of radiation; we can't label it as OCD or as a mental disorder; because that means that someone can marginalize their political opponents by claiming the opposition has a mental disorder.
So we have to deny the existence of the mental disorder lest the "wrong people" might use the existence of the mental disorder for political gain.
Why can't mental health professionals just be honest the way scientists are.
Sure people bend what scientists say to their own ends; but that's when the scientist makes clear exactly what the are / are not saying. Why hide some scientific or mental health truth so that the "wrong people" can't use it.
Once you start on that path; it's a very slippery slope to outright dishonesty.
There's a reason why the
There's a reason why the slippery slope fallacy is called just that... a fallacy.
I said this:
"Evidently you are saying that mental health professionals have to consider the political implications of their diagnosis." We DO.
But I most certainly did NOT say this:
"If a patient has OCD symptoms involving an excessive fear of radiation; we can't label it as OCD or as a mental disorder." Ridiculous!
I said:
"We are ethically obligated to contextualize our public comments regarding diagnoses under these highly politicized scenarios."
If you think those two phrases are equivalent, I don't think I can help you.
Weasel wording in evidence.
You can say you are "ethically obligated to contextualize" your comments; but that is just "weasel wording" for saying that you are making political considerations paramount over the needs of the patient.
Why don't you skip the "weasel wording" and just be honest with both your patient and the public.
If someone has an unreasonable fear of radiation that fits the OCD pattern, just as an unreasonable fear of germs fits the OCD pattern; then call that unreasonable fear "OCD" and damn what the political fallout will be.
In science, we don't skew our findings so that we serve politicians. Heck, that's what people fear scientists might do - skew scientific results to please our political or financial masters. ( That's why people doubt studies that are paid for by tobacco companies, or insurance companies... they are afraid that the scientists are skewing results in order to please the people paying them. )
Then here you are giving credence to that. You are saying that mental health professionals have to do a political analysis in addition to the mental health analysis before they label a case of OCD as a case of OCD.
BTW - just because a "slippery slope" can be used as a logical fallacy doesn't mean that the slippery slope argument doesn't have merit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.
So if you want to argue logic - then you better brush up on your logic because you just FLUNKED elementary logic. You employed the "pop-logic" maxim that "slippery slopes" are always fallacies; which they are not.
You better be good as a mental health professional, because your logic and knowledge of science really don't pass muster.
BAD SCIENCE!!
You may be a mental health professional or psychiatrist; but your knowledge of radiation science is horrible Instead of being a hypocrite, just as you advocate leaving health issues to health professionals; why not leave the issues with regard to radiation risks to the professionals in that field; health physicists.
Fear of large doses of radiation is justified, and large doses should be avoided.
However, small doses are normal and a part of everyday life.
The only things I stated
The only things I stated were:
- Why concern or fear about Fukushima and radioactivity is extraordinarily unlikely to be due to OCD (and certainly not nearly sufficient to make such a diagnosis)
- No such concept as "radiophobia" exists in the mental health world; this is a pseudo-science word.
- Phobias and fears are similar, but not all fears are phobias - The vast majority are not! In general, we should not be label-happy and err on the conservative side, as every good therapist should know.
How does this over-step my bounds as a mental health professional, exactly?
Seeing as how you have never
Seeing as how you have never treated my client, you really arent in a position to make a diagnosis. A mental health professional would never assume to dismiss the diagnosis of another professional without first reviewing the case and interviewing the client.
Concern about Fuku is not in and of itself OCD, but it is not only concern that my client has. It is a host of behavior and obsessions that represent hours per day of my client's life.
Very low danger
Glad to hear from you again, and glad to hear that your patient is doing better.
Your patient must be referring to the spent fuel pool at Unit 4, since the reactor itself was not operating at the time of the earthquake last year.
Over a year ago, in the first couple weeks of the accident, the main concern with the spent fuel pool at Unit 4 was that without proper cooling the water could boil away, the rods could heat up (due to their decay heat), and the cladding could catch fire and release radioactive material into the environment. (This didn't end up happening, by the way — the water level stayed high enough that the fuel rods were never even exposed to air*.) The spent fuel pool of Unit 4 was of the most concern because it had fuel assemblies that had been burned most recently — specifically, 204 of its 1535 assemblies had been burned in the core until November 30, 2010*. This was only about 100 days before the accident, so the fuel rods could have had enough residual decay heat to actually melt or catch on fire without enough water cooling.
By June 2011 the total heat load of the spent fuel pool had already decreased to 70% of what it was in March 2011**. Now that even more time has gone by — it's been about 500 days since the fuel was used in the reactor — the decay heat of the hottest rods has decreased even further. This makes the safety margin now much larger than it was in March 2011, and even then the fuel remained adequately cooled. The danger of radiological release is therefore small.
Another part of the answer to this question is that the pool has been reinforced. The pool survived the natural disasters and hydrogen explosions intact, and then steel reinforcements were added in June 2011 to support the bottom of the pool to provide extra safety in case of another earthquake. They are also in the process of adding a cover to Unit 4 to prevent any releases from occurring. An article explaining what they are working on at Unit 4 right now can be found here: World Nuclear News: "Fukushima fuel removal buildings".
I hope this helps your client. Please let me know if you have any more questions.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
*INPO Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
**American Nuclear Society Special Committee Report on Fukushima, Appendix G
Thanks! This will be super
Thanks! This will be super helpful for my client and I to discuss. I really appreciate the reply and the help with this.
Client? Oh dear! What kind of
Client? Oh dear! What kind of mental health professional are you, to be making this kind of mistake?
I could hazard a guess (one of the more affordable alternatives), but I'll refrain from being specific because I don't want to make the mistake of slandering a potentially innocent profession.
Radiological concerns are NOT very likely to stem from OCD. If there isn't enough of a fantasy element that you're clearly not talking about actual radioactivity anymore... it's not OCD.
This is why thorough training is SO important in the mental health field. A year or two is not sufficient.
There is a ton of magical
There is a ton of magical thinking with my client. My client has harm OCD with concurrent checking and washing.
I trained with the foremost experts in the field of OCD work. I have been in the OCD field for 7 years. Your standard talk therapist knows almost nothing about EXRP and it sounds like you dont either.
Stupid anti-nuke at play
OCD therapist, we have a stupid anti-nuke here pretending to be a health professional as a way of bolstering his worthless opinions.
It just goes to show you how desperate the self-righteous anti-nukes are in attempting to further their ill-considered agendas.
Pay the ignorant moron no mind
Follow up question from my
Follow up question from my client: In the event of a worst case scenario such as a really bad earthquake and the #4 unit were to sustain more damage and possibly even be exposed to air, what is the risk/not risk? I know this may be a wide range of estimate, but comparison to say normal background radiation, a plane ride, or a medical x ray would all be useful in terms of our discussion.
I read somewhere that fallout could go from .03% of yearly exposure to .045 based on how much fukushima was storing, but I am not sure if I understood completely what I read.
Thanks again so much! This info has made such a difference in treatment.
Explanation for the above.
The total amount of radioactive material that is on site at Fukushima; including the contents of the reactors and all the spent fuel pools is roughly HALF the total amount of radioactive material that was released into the environment from all the years of atmospheric nuclear testing.
The radioactive material released by the years of nuclear testing accounts for <0.03% of the average person's radiation exposure as one can see from the line labeled "Fallout" from the following table courtesy of the Health Physics Society chapter at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
So the absolute worse case which would be if ALL the radioactive material at Fukushima was tossed into the environment, would be an increase of 50% over the amount due to atmospheric testing fallout. Since that fallout is responsible for <0.03% of the average person's background exposure, an increase of 50% due to the total release of all Fukushima radioactivity would increase the fallout component by 50% from <0.030% to <0.045%
Mother Nature, by a factor of thousands, is the major source of radiation exposure for all inhabitants of the planet Earth.
Your statement: "Mother
Your statement: "Mother Nature, by a factor of thousands, is the major source of radiation exposure for all inhabitants of the planet Earth." is incorrect.
Inhabitants of Fukushima Prefecture are now receiving most of their radiation exposure from the nuclear catastrophe there. In case you had forgotten about them, you need to remember they are inhabitants of planet Earth too.
WRONG!!
Sorry - but you are just plain WRONG
Only very close to the reactor, well within the evacuation zone is the radiation exposure due to the accident above what Mother Nature inflicts.
For ALL members of the general public; Mother Nature is the major source of radiation exposure.
but...
the average person was not living in Utah or Nevada during the heyday of atmospheric testing.
surely those of us int he general path of the jet stream from Japan would, in the weeks following a massive release, potentially be exposed to much greater concentrations.
Right?
DIFFUSION!!
Any release will diffuse, like it did when the first releases from Fukushima happened.
Even though California and the West Coast were in the "path" of the jet stream, the releases from Fukushima detected here by BRAWM were way below the background levels. Any release has thousands of miles to diffuse to bring concentrations down low.
If you are 2 miles off shore of Fukushima when it releases, then you may get a significant dose. However, since California and the USA are thousands of miles downwind of Fukushima, the concentrations will be much, much less than what Mother Nature is exposing us to; even in the worst case.
Thanks that makes a lot of
Thanks that makes a lot of sense. Is there any data on how much radiation was already released from Fukushima during the critical time period ( March 2011-April 2011) versus how much is at the plant as a whole (in a worst case scenario). This whole discussion of relative risk if very helpful with my client.
Thank You
Thank You for your honest and accurate assessment of the situation at the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.
The propagandists have been having a field day of late claiming that the Unit 4 SFP was a cataclysm about to happen, and that it had the potential of making the northern hemisphere uninhabitable.
In reality, the danger is very low, and getting lower, as you point out.
It is really amazing the degree to which some propagandists will lie in order to further their own parochial political causes, regardless of how ill-founded they are.
Up the SSRI dosage until a
Up the SSRI dosage until a comfortable numb is once again achieved. Best wishes.
Not a psychiatrist. I dont
Not a psychiatrist. I dont prescribe or control medication dosages.
Cesium in pollen in so cal?
http://enenews.com/gundersen-cesium-134-137-detected-southern-california...
OCD really?
Yes really
Are you this clients diagnostician or therapist? I highly doubt it. OCD is an extremely debilitating illness. While I will certainly acknowledge the very real dangers of excessive radioactivity, it is highly inappropriate to question someone's illness like that. You have no knowledge of the case at all.
WRONG!!!
OCD is not necessarily an "extremely debilitating illness". Like practically any mental illness, or any somatic illness for that matter; there is a wide range of severity for OCD from mild to debilitating.
The patient in question may have a mild or moderate form of OCD; depending on the symptoms. Can this patient go about a normal day in a fairly normal manner with only occasional episodes of fear; then they may have a mild case.
If the person is so obsessed that they can't function normally ( like the stupid, self-righteous professional anti-nukes ), then they may have a severe case.
In this case, the client
In this case, the client started with severe OCD. You are right that for some it is not debilitating. The clients that I usually work with have severe OCD,
Here is one way to think about what having OCD is like:
Imagine that your mind got stuck on a certain thought or image....
anti-nukes!
Then this thought or image got replayed in your mind over and over no matter what you did…
anti-nukes!!
You don’t want these thoughts – it feels like an avalanche…
Along with the thoughts come intense feelings of anxiety…
anti-nukes!!!
On the one hand, you might recognize that the fear doesn’t make sense, doesn’t seem reasonable, yet it still feels very real, intense, and true…
Why would your brain lie? Why would you have these feelings if they weren’t true?
Feelings don’t lie… Do they?
ANTI-NUKES!!!!
Unfortunately, if you have OCD, they do lie. If you have OCD, the warning system in your brain is not working correctly. Your brain is telling you that you are in danger when you are not.
When scientists compare pictures of the brains of groups of people with OCD, they can see that some areas of the brain are different than the brains of people who don’t have OCD.
Those tortured with OCD are desperately trying to get away from paralyzing, unending anxiety…
http://www.ocfoundation.org/whatisocd.aspx
Poor analogy
I see the rather ill-considered, feeble attempt at analogy in the above; but it just doesn't work. In OCD, the sufferer can not detect the threat, be it germs or radiation. So the OCD sufferer over reacts to the imaginary threat.
In the case of the anti-nukes, there's nothing imaginary. The anti-nukes are here online trumpeting their stupidity, ignorance, and self-righteousness. It's all there for people to see, so nobody has to imagine anything.
Poor analogy. Thanks for playing.
Nope you are correct And I sure shouldn't know anything.
But if i was this docs patient I would surely be mad as hell !theres something called "doctor-patient confidentiality ".
Confidentiality
Seeing as I have revealed no info that would allow for anyone to Id the the client, there is no breach in confidentiality. Doctors and therapists frequently consult with outside experts to help their cases without giving identifying details. Furthermore my client is aware of and approves of my asking questions on this forum. I am not an expert on radiation and therefor due look to guidance from professionals as any responsible therapist would.
Anti-nukes say the stupidest things
Just as Art Linkletter had a program "Kids say the darnedest things"; the anti-nukes say the stupidest things. As you state, since you've given no information that allows identification of the patient, you haven't breached any confidence. It's normal for a mental health professional to deal with OCD patients; so saying you have an OCD patient breaks no confidence. But the self-righteous anti-nukes have to turn an innocent remark into a felony. It's their standard MO - "motis operandi".
I've often thought that this exaggerated fear of radiation is another manifestation of the mental health problem, OCD. It parallels the usual manifestation of someone being afraid of "germs". We can't see "germs" and we can't see "radiation". We are exposed to "germs" all the time, and we are exposed to "radiation" all the time. We have an immune system to protect us from "germs", and we have a DNA repair mechanism to protect us from "radiation".
In spite of that; OCD sufferers have an unnatural morbid fear of "germs". In the same vein, the anti-nukes have an unnatural morbid fear of "radiation". Some go to ridiculous extremes in order to avoid "radiation", and then pat themselves on the back for how well they avoided "radiation", when in actuality, they are just "giving in" to their own mental imbalance.
It would be much more productive if they sought help from a mental health professional.
While it is possible that it
While it is possible that it is OCD, I would never presume to diagnose someone over the internet or someone who was not my client. You parallels between germs and radiation do hit the nail on the head in the case of my particular client.
I do think concern about radiation and even skepticism can be healthy and can be part of the normal spectrum of human opinion and thought. It it when the concern interferes with one's ability to enjoy life or perform functions, is when it could be OCD. I am perfectly fine with my client not eating food from Japan or avoiding backscatter xrays, but it becomes OCD when rain prevents my client from being able to go outside.
Concern and skepticism..
Concern and skepticism can be helpful in the absence of good information.
But that concern and skepticism should only be a stop-gap measure. If you are concerned or skeptical about something, you shouldn't wallow in that concern or skepticism. If you are concerned, you need to go seek out good information to see if that concern is justified or not.
That's what I see too many people failing at. They think that skepticism is the end of the line, the end of the story. In point of fact, one is skeptical when one doesn't know what the truth is, but is taking a conservative approach; that is assuming the worst case scenario.
Unfortunately, that's where too many leave it. They say the are skeptical, and that cements their opinion. If you are skeptical, by definition, you don't know the truth. The truly intelligent response is not to remain skeptical; but go get good information.
When you do get good information, don't seek it out in websites or groups that are activists for some cause or other. They are not purveyors of truth.
That's why BRAWM is so helpful. Although the hard-core anti-nukes here doubt the honesty of BRAWM; most here believe in those associated with a great University like University of California - Berkeley to be "honest brokers" and purveyors of good information.
MIT also hosted a very honest and informative website on the Fukushima incident at:
http://www.mitnse.com
It even appears that they have gone beyond Fukushima and are addressing the concerns related to the 2011 earthquake in Virginia and the North Anna plant.
I wish there were more sites by good scientists like this. We shouldn't cede the Internet and cyberspace to "activists" who are not seekers of truth, but merely pushing their own parochial political interests.
Education is a valuable treatment
I think you would agree that education is a valuable treatment.
If a person if afraid of germs, it is useful to educate them to the fact that we are exposed to germs all the time. One of the treatments for OCD is "exposure therapy" where you expose the person to what they are afraid of, and when they realize that they are not negatively impacted, it helps to mitigate their fear.
That's why people who are afraid of germs are told to touch doorknobs, and NOT go wash their hands, for example. It is also helpful to educate them that they are exposed to germs even without touching doorknobs, or whatever. There are germs in the air, and there are germs on the things the OCD suffer thinks are "clean". By showing them that even the "clean" things have germs helps to defuse the OCD.
Likewise, it is good to educate the radiation OCD sufferer as to the true nature of radiation exposure, and how they are continually exposed to radiation from cosmic rays or granite, or radon.... that is beyond anyone's control to avoid. By knowing that they are exposed to radiation all the time is the same as "exposure therapy".
The last thing in the world you would want for the radiation OCD sufferer is to have them buy into the exaggerated claims about the dangers of Fukushima by those that are not interested in getting out accurate information, but are interested in "fear mongering" for their own political purposes. Those people are actually "feeding" the OCD in the radiation OCD sufferer, and doing them no good service.
I think you would agree.
Yep. What I do is exposure
Yep. What I do is exposure therapy. We constantly refer back to the cosmic radiation etc. one thing that is important to remember is that with OCD that are cognitive dustirtions that can make even benign things seem scary. Part of my work is exposure to those things as well and working cognitively through the distortions.
That said my client asked a question that I didnt know the answer to. Ie worst case scenario re reactor 4 and appropriate actions. Thus I turned to brawm. The data has been invaluable in helping my client. Enenews is pretty much like a nightmare as a therapist since it feeds my clients fears.
AMEN!!
Enenews is pretty much like a nightmare as a therapist since it feeds my clients fears.
==========
Amen to that!!! I don't see them doing anybody any good.
By that logic, people who are
By that logic, people who are afraid of fire should pour gasoline all over them selves and light a match. People afraid of heights should toss themselves off a cliff. People afraid of second-hand smoke should go hang out at a cigar shop. And maybe this supposed "OCD" patient (I still say you made everything up) ought to go bathe in the waters of Fukushima, too!
Maybe THAT will CURE HIM! Confront your fear, RIGHT DOC!
Shill, shill, shill, shill, shill.
therapist here
someone who has a severe phobia of heights may be unable to travel in a plane, work in a tall office building, or go on elevated freeways. i would never ask my client to do something i would not do. i would ask this client to do things like stand on a ladder, look over railings, or look out windows in tall buildings. these are all safe activities that someone with a height phobia may benefit from
i would never ask my current ocd client to "bathe in the waters of fukushima" I am perfectly fine with her never going to Japan and avoiding food imported from Japan as a realistic safety measure. However, someone with radiation OCD may have a hard time saying the word cancer out loud or perhaps have fear triggered by shaking hands with an oncology doctor or x ray tech. these are safe activities that i would have my client engage in.
i am not trying to convince my that radiation isnt dangerous. it is. or rather can be. what i am trying to do is work with my client to confront fears that are irrational and that stem from a real fear of radiation that is exaggerated by the OCD. I am neither pro or con radiation. I am pro treatment of OCD for someone who wants their OCD treated.
all i wanted was an unbiased scientific opinion on the dangers of reactor 4 so that my client and I could talk about her fears in a realistic way.
By your logic, anybody who
By your logic, anybody who disagrees with your point of view is a shill. When you think that everybody is your enemy and conspire to do you harm - it's a sign of a serious mental disease.
P.S. I'd like for nuclear plants to cease to exist too - in case you were wondering...
Of COURSE I'm mentally ill.
Of COURSE I'm mentally ill. I must be, I want nuclear plants closed down and for the goverment to stop poisoning us!
Consume, crave, buy, consume, crave, buy, consume. Don't think, NEVER think.
As for your last allegation, I do not believe you, shill.
The poison is all around us
You just need to look closely. There are poisonous chemicals in your food, shampoo, pillow you sleep on. There are also diseases you can die from any day, heck you can go cut your hair at the barbershop and get Hepatitis B! You gotta learn to understand the risks and stop reading conspiracy crap - the more of it you consume, the less you'll be able to think like a sane person.
You don't know me or anybody here. Heck, why are you here anyway? To tell everybody they are shills and you're a godsend prophet with a mission of truth?
I probably have more reasons to wish for the closure of all the plants than you ever had, as I lived through Chernobyl when it blew up (less than 200 km from the site). It's an unsafe technology with a major accident rate of one per twenty years. Humans should not build something they can't control.
However, apocalypse didn't come then and from all the data I've seen so far, it seems unlikely this time. Of course, this accident is far from over plus there are what, 500 plants worldwide?-there's still chance for the worst to happen.
Do yourself a favor-take a break. Enjoy the sunshine, springtime, friends and family if you have them. The sky will always be falling.