Posted by
Andrews on Monday, August 03, 2009 7:15:13 PM
It is interesting to see how stories are reported. The old "if it bleeds it leads" rule leads to interesting distortion of news stories.
For instance, there have been a series of articles about tanning beds and recent studies that show they are "more carcinogenic than smoking and Hepatitis B". And yes, it is true they cause "cancer" at a rate higher than those risks. What is either omitted or buried at the end is that those "cancers" caused by tanning bed are largely benign growths which do not spread. So, tanning beds cause lumps, but in terms of lethality, they fall nowhere near the other risks listed.
But when has the press let a little thing like the truth get in the way of a good screaming headline? Not to mention that I am sure trial lawyers are already drooling over the potential lawsuits, either over deaths which are probably not caused by tanning beds, but can still be tied to them in the minds of impressionable jurors, or, if that fails, suits over the fears these reports caused even without any real harm*. Not that the media listens to trial lawyers, though that has happened from time to time, but those same lawyers often form or fund "public interest" groups pushing their agenda, both to establish pools of "experts" and to drum up public outrage, whether there is a risk or not. And the media DOES listen to such groups.
So we have yet another pointless scare, the same as the belief that all asbestos is life threatening, ignoring the huge difference between long and short fiber varieties, or the dozens of other scares over imaginary or exaggerated threats.
No, I am not saying that the science is unimportant, or that there is no risk to tanning beds. Some growths will be malignant, and everyone should be warned that benign growths will increase with the use of tanning beds. I have no problem with reporting such studies. What bothers me is the way the press, as well as trial lawyers and government, will exaggerate such threats for a variety of reasons. And that can be every bit as harmful as underestimating the risk**.
-----------------------------------
* Yes, lawyers have sued, and sometimes won, over fear caused by pollution or cancer threats, even without real harm. And they wonder why we ask for tort reform?
** For example, the lurid fear mongering headlines about vaccination risks have caused some impressionable parents to avoid remote vaccine risks by accepting much greater risk of paralysis, disability or death due to disease. But the "greedy vaccine maker" makes a good villain for a news report, or target for lawyers, while diseases leave no one to sue. So we get lopsided reporting overstating one risk while understating the other.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTSCRIPT
Obviously what risks they will accept should be left to each individual. In the case of vaccination we run into some "free rider" and shared risk questions, as if an insufficient number of individuals are vaccinated, it can possibly reduce the benefit of vaccination for all. Some questions can be avoided by removing government from improper areas, for instance mandatory school inoculations would be a non-issue if schools are all private, as each school could establish policies, and parents could agree or not as they see fit, only because public schools are governmental entities does it become a political question. However, there still remain some difficult questions regarding inoculation and other public health measures, simply because one can choose to impose risks on others. But that is the topic for another post, as such questions require a lot more time and thought than I can give here.
POSTSCRIPT II
This highlights a problem with some studies. The term "cancer" is unfortunately ill-defined. In the public mind "cancer" usually indicates a life-threatening malignant growth which metastatizes. On the other hand, it is often used in studies to indicate any abnormal cellular growth, or else the studies indicate nothing more than "growth", which the reporters translate into "cancer". This confusion can lead to people hearing the reports imagining that the chemical, environmental risk, or other threat is much more damaging than it truly is. This is one area where reporters could do a lot of good by making clear what they are reporting, by trying to develop a more precise vocabulary to convey exactly what they are reporting. On the other hand, as I said above, that would remove the news value of many of these studies, so I am not going to hold my breath waiting for reporters to commit to more precise reporting.