It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is normalcy bias the norm? If so, why?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 06:45 AM

The normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster and its possible effects.

I believe normalcy bias is the norm. I think the Fukushima situation is proving that beyond any doubt. I explored a different aspect of the issue in another thread:

If the world has collectively gone insane, how would we know?

The evidence is mounting concerning Fukushima being an ELE to the point where it's undeniable in my opinion. Here's a decent run-down on the topic:

Why is normalcy bias the norm?

In my opinion, it's mostly due to religious belief. Consider the following:

84 percent of the world population has faith; a third are Christian

If you believe that "God is in control" then what's a little thing like an extinction event like Fukushima? What's the death of the Pacific Ocean mean to 'God'?

Wake these people up when they're on their death bed, come on.

Normalcy bias naturally follows from religious belief in my opinion.

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 06:57 AM
a reply to: Profusion

I feel that it is somewhat shortsighted to hold up religious faith as a driver for normalcy bias, for the following reason. Christian organisations, and organisations from other faiths all over the world, fund disaster relief efforts globally, and many send missionaries and volunteers in their thousands, all over the world, all year round.

I personally have a faith, but am very concerned about a great many things that are going on, both on this planet, and with regard to near earth objects and the potential they have for devastating the planetary population. Many are aware of the threats we face as a species, but powerless to mitigate for them, or prevent them directly.

It is not normalcy bias which causes trouble around these parts, but a lack of personal power, and a concentration of power in governments, companies, and banking institutions. When the people who stand to see their nett worth plummet by admitting a problem are the ones who have the power to mitigate the problem, that causes big issues.

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:00 AM
a reply to: Profusion

It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster and its possible effects.

Minimize, downplay or outright denial.

"It'll be alright."

ETA: Tried to watch the vid, he promised "data", didn't see any though on actual meter readings in all the places he went. Build up of radioactive elements in biological life forms is cumulative, should be showing up in higher life forms and be measurable with scintillators and such. I think yah, big denial about Fukushima going on, but still would like to see some of that raw data on levels in all the places he visited in his investigation. Or any other links to similar results.

Sorry if he does do this somewhere in the video, I only scanned it…

edit on 17-7-2015 by intrptr because: ETA:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:02 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

I agree with this, the regular layman has little they can do to help the situation at Fukushima. In Japan, it is even going to be illegal to report on it as a person soon from what I read on another ATS thread.

So that means that the people in power are the only ones who can do anything about it, and they seem to be too proud to admit there is a problem. Or it could be normalcy bias. Although I have seen mention here and there of people in a position of power who admit there is a problem resigning
edit on 17amFri, 17 Jul 2015 08:03:37 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:34 AM
a reply to: darkbake

So that means that the people in power are the only ones who can do anything about it, and they seem to be too proud to admit there is a problem.

A void in the media… an issue that isn't being covered… at all.

Omission of emissions… since the beginning, really.

A clue in and of itself.

If they wanted to prove to us there wasn't a problem they would make test results easily available and easily understood for the average person. The nuclear industry, the fuel cycle, waste, accidents, the bomb industry, all down played, minimized.

Instead, the vacuum of silence. Or if addressed, its innocuous, disengenuous. Like, mystery die offs and unknown causes.

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:35 AM
If you're not good with science you need to come to terms with this. There is no killing of the pacific ocean and earth due to Fukushima. There have been credible reports which come out showing likely impacts for a while now. If you can't comprehend them that's one thing, but to jump to wacky claims and tie it into "normalcy bias" is an entirely different one altogether.

It's not possible for Fukushima to ruin an ocean. Period.

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:02 AM
a reply to: Profusion

Doesn't seem fair to place lack of response solely on the shoulders of the religious. There was more than enough done by religious organizations in Japan to progress relief efforts while the politicians kept spewing. Point is, if there's a global disaster indeed threatening to wipe us all out, it will take more than people of faith to prevent it.

As for this event itself, lack of response can easily be blamed on the lack of media attention, coverups by governments, world power groups, you name it... although there might not even be a problem at all. The shady power brokers live here too, no reason to let the world die with them on it. We would have heard more about this by now.

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 02:20 PM
And what about Chernobyl? It is a similar event and no one reports on its continuing impacts. Has it killed off all of the Eastern Bloc by now?

Fukushima is not good and has horrible implications for the immediate area, but it would take a lot more than just Fukushima to irretrievably damage the entire oceans of the world. The Pacific is a system linked to every other ocean out there. To that immense volume of water, Fukushima is the tiniest drop all things considered.

It does need to be addressed before another natural disaster worsens it, but it isn't killing the entire ocean.

top topics


log in