infected by radiation poisoning

Thu Aug 4 19:14:58 UTC 2011

Below is an excerpt from an article about civil defense in 1962 aimed
at the general public. During a Q & A the author says that one cannot
be infected by radiation. The word "infect" was in use before the germ
theory of disease was propounded and accepted. The multiple senses of
infect have changed over time and have been influenced by scientific
thought, I think.

The example from 1985 below shows that the writer does believe an
individual can be "infected by radiation" in the domain of comic
books.

Cite: 1962 November 22, Bladen Journal, Civil Defense In Bladen by
Captain Ted Fox, Page 4, Column 4, Elizabethtown, North, Carolina.
(Google News Archive)

Q. If I have been infected by radiation, can I give it to my children?
A. No. It is not a disease. It doesn't "infect" anybody. The gamma
rays damage the person through which they pass â€“ no one else.

Cite: 1985 October 4, Milwaukee Sentinel, TV Today: Remake Of 'Long
Hot Summer' Sizzles by Duane Dudek, Part 3, Page 2, GNA Page 25,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Google News Archive)

The X-Men and the Fantastic Four remain vivid, tales of normal folks
infected by radiation and afflicted with super and paranormal powers.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: Â  Â  Â  American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster: Â  Â  Â  "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject: Â  Â  Â Re: infected by radiation poisoning
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 8/4/2011 11:46 AM, victor steinbok wrote:
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>
>>I don't have OED access this minute (and for another week), but I'd
>>want to look at the examples. It would be interesting to see if there
>>is any frequency to "infected with poison", which is still different
>>from "infected with ... poisoning". There is also a difference between
>>"infected with the [Holy] Spirit" and "infected with radiation
>>poisoning".
>
> "Infected with the "... Spirit" belongs to one of
> the later, less literal/physical/medical senses (4b and ff.) that I omitted.
>
>>But I would not at all be surprised if I've fallen into
>>the recency fallacy on this one.
>
> My guess. Â But I agree that if someone says "I've
> been infected", I look for horses, not zebras (germs, not radioactivity).
>
>>I had to think about that expression
>>for a bit and still came to the conclusion that it was odd. A part of
>>the problem, for me, is that in radiation poisoning the agent is
>>inanimate. Can one be "infected with a headache"? "infected with a
>>stroke"? "infected with broken bones"? I wonder, because these are
>>closer to radiation than to germs or spirit--but there is no "personal
>>or material agent" (except for someone who might have broken the
>>bones, a blood clot that might have caused the stroke, etc.). Can one
>>be infected with a hereditary disorder or a genetic mutation of any
>>kind? Nominally, none of these would be barred by these definitions.
>
> To me the distinction is that both germs and
> radiation are "agents" that can "infect", whereas
> headache, stroke, broken bones are
> agent-unknown. Â Although some possibly might say
> things like "infected [by an ear-wig] with a
> headache", when an agent is hypothesized.
>
>>Of course, 1. would apply to poisons (it literally mentions them), but
>>then it's "obsolete or rare"--and perhaps was rare before it was
>>obsolete. The same can be said about 2. And 3. and 4. are closer to
>>the currently standard meaning--but has the meaning narrowed or are
>>the lemmas simply too broad?
>
> Perhaps the meaning (of 1b, 2, and 3) has
> re-broadened, or perhaps they have not been
> looked at more recently than 1853, 1693, and 1885 respectively.
>
> Joel
>
>
>>VS-)
>>
>>PS: no need to post all the examples on my account. I'll have access
>>again in a few days.
>>
>>On 8/4/11, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Seems like an old and honored sense. Â From the OED:
>> >
>> > To imbue a person or thing with certain (esp.
>> > bad) qualities; said either of the personal or material agent.
>> >
>> > Â  1. trans. To affect, influence, or imbue with
>> > some quality or property by immersion or infusion.
>> > b. To impregnate or imbue with some qualifying
>> > substance, or active principle, as poison, or
>> > salt; to taint. Obs. or rare. Â (1550 through 1853)
>> >
>> > ï¿½To affect injuriously or unpleasantly; to
>> > spoil or corrupt by noxious influence, admixture,
>> > or alloy; to adulterate. Obs. Â (1440 through 1693)
>> >
>> > 3. To impregnate or taint with deleterious
>> > qualities; to fill (the air, etc.) with noxious
>> > corruption or the germs of disease; to render
>> > injurious to health. Â [I.e., not only with germs.] Â (1480 through 1885
>> >
>> > 4. a. To affect (a person, animal, or part of the
>> > body) with disease; to communicate a morbific
>> > virus or noxious germs so as to generate disease;
>> > to act upon by infection or contagion. Also absol. Â (c1386 through 1845)
>> >
>> > [And then various senses less literally related to noxiousness or disease.]
>> >
>> > Joel
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org