Is there a name for a logical fallacy that uses irrelevant or unfamiliar statistics to make a point? I think there is a dishonest or fallacious argument based on quoting some fact or figure or statistic that most people do not know, and cannot put into context, and then pretending that it is serious or alarming.  What would you call this fallacy/argument?
Example:  "Isn't it terrible, I heard that people working in Sizewell B nuclear power station receive an annual radiation dose of 2000 microsieverts."
Sounds scary because it is a biggish number, radiation sounds scary, and most people have no idea what a high or low dose of radiation would be.  In fact 2000 microsieverts is 2 millisieverts which is the average annual dose from natural background radiation in the UK.  So the number quoted actually shows that people working at Sizewell B are not getting any more radiation dose than people not working there, but the argument can cause alarm because of people's unfamiliarity with the subject.

I think you could reasonably call this an instance of context-dropping --- in the present case the conclusion is a fallacious inference from the evidence, since the inference relies on a lack of context around what is a "normal" or "big" value of radiation dosage.
