24.

How might the context in which knowledge is presented influence

whether it is accepted or rejected?

Carnett, J. B. (2017). A bottle of Radithor. Radium Girls: The dark times of luminous
watches. CNN. Retrieved February 24, 2023, from
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/radium-girls-radioactive-paint/index.html.

The first object I chose is the RadiThor, a radon-contained solution. When radon
was discovered, it was a neon emitting substance that was effective against cancer, a
disease treated as an incurable sickness. Since the US FDA didn’t regulate radon as it was
a natural element, products containing radon have been sold with an advertisement of “A
cure for the Living Dead”. Millions of people were exposed to extreme radiation because
of the hasty acceptance of radon as a treatment in the medical profession.

The reason for choosing this object is because of the critical fatality and the
spreading of the RadiThor. Due to the decision made by the medical profession, the
whole American people were exposed to the danger of radon without prior notification
about the risk of cancer occurrence. Moreover, the Soviet Union imported radon therapy
and products to follow the development USA has done, making more victims of radon.
The acceptance of radon from the presentation of the radon foundation without inspection
of possible risks causing significant impact on the world is the reason for the choice.

The discovery of effectiveness of radon on cancer treatment has only been tested
for a very short term, and medical professionals could not observe the risk of damaging
normal cells, not only the cancer cells. The context of the knowledge about radon only
contained half of the characteristics of the radon. Because of this, the acceptance towards
radon therapy in the USA has been influenced as none of the risks were presented. The
FDA of US’s announcement about regulation of radon after the examination of the
danger of radon is the evidence of the influence as if the presentation of radon contained
the risk, then the FDA and medical profession would have tested radon for a longer term,
not applying it in a hurry. After the radon, most of the newly presented medical
techniques are treated with cautious perspective as accepting perspectives left a major
scar on the medical profession.

The second object I chose is the photo of myself washing hands. The theory of
washing hands has been suggested by Ignaz Semmelweiz, in 1847 while examining the
childbed mortality after giving birth. Although the germ theory of disease had not yet
been accepted in the timeline where Semmelweis found out the hand washing theory, he
concluded some unknown "cadaverous material" was lowering the mortality rate of the
infants. Regarding his own theory, washing hands with chlorinated lime solution
improved the mortality rate by 90%.
 The reason for choosing this object was because of the acceptance of Semelweiz’s
hand washing method, which was negative from his colleagues and other medical
professionals. Although he had the evidence of lowering the death of infants by 90% to
support his claim, other professionals rejected Semmelweiz’s offer as they didn’t want to
believe that the cause of death of the infants were on themselves. Since Ignaz
Semmelwiz’s theory got rejected even with his irresistible evidence, there must be an
influence of presentation of the knowledge on the decision other doctors have made.

The context behind the rejection of hand washing theory was the pride the doctors
had on their job. The claim Semelweiz had made couldn’t explain what unknown
“cadaverous material”, the germs, was, making other doctors not convincing enough to
abandon their prides. Although Semelweiz had perfect evidence from his investigation on
actual patients, mis-explanation of this theoretical claim as a context influenced the
doctors’ acceptance towards the hand washing. The attitude towards inexplicable
methods as a medical professional could be a repulsive offer since knowing what they
were applying to the patients was a significant factor. However, with a key concept of
responsibility, doctors who were responsible for patients’ mortality could have agreed to
the method since lowering the mortality was a top challenge faced in the timeline.