Why would you assume significant damage must be obvious at the time? You don’t notice the specific genetic damage that actually caused cancer, and it’s killed vastly more people than bullets.
Hurricanes are infrequent and don’t inflict devastation over nearly as much area as heat waves can. Hurricanes are obvious like bullets, but add up the numbers globally and average over a decade and they’re not that big a deal.
> You don’t notice the specific genetic damage that actually caused cancer
Actually we do notice stuff like that. Which is why it is advised that you don't inhale asbestos particles, wear sunscreen, avoid smoking, etc.
My point still stands: it's understandable that heatwaves aren't considered as serious as hurricanes if the only impact of a heatwave you can point to is that lightbulbs theoretically burn out more quickly during a heat wave.
I also mentioned paint and everything that rusts, not just lightbulbs. Let’s add all electronics exposed to the elements, tires, and just about every structure outside.
> Actually we do notice stuff like that. Which is why it is advised that you don't inhale asbestos particles, wear sunscreen, avoid smoking, etc.
No we don’t. Asbestos and others became such an issue because people didn’t notice the damage they inferred it after the fact based on exposure. It’s easy to correlate unusual symptoms with workplace hazards after the fact, but by then it’s too late: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
> No we don’t. Asbestos and others became such an issue because people didn’t notice the damage they inferred it after the fact based on exposure.
Isn’t every observation just a causal inference after the fact?
Look, you’re free to attempt to quantify the impact. Either via direct measurement or a theoretical calculation. However, a baseless opination without any data backing it up isn’t that convincing or interesting.
> Isn’t every observation just a causal inference after the fact?
No, instinctive reflex for example is a response to a stimulus without inference.
If uranium had a horrific taste the radium girls wouldn’t have licked their uranium paint brushes thus avoiding Radium jaw. Horrific taste doesn’t always mean something is harmful, but it generally causes people to limit ingestion.
Bad taste is simply a perception, you’re making an inference that the bad taste was caused by something but the perception precedes the inference.
Further the perception and response to that taste isn’t a inference that something is physically harmful. You can dislike perfectly healthy food. That said, if uranium had a bad taste people wouldn’t have been as harmed demonstrating the lack of perception of the initial minute harm resulted in greater long term harm.
Hurricanes are infrequent and don’t inflict devastation over nearly as much area as heat waves can. Hurricanes are obvious like bullets, but add up the numbers globally and average over a decade and they’re not that big a deal.