Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My rant is against the misrepresentation of any fact to the public for any purpose, even keeping people healthy. If the public can't understand epidemiological data (which it obviously can't, since even the press, and an assumed educated sector of the public, seems incapable of understanding it), then it should be offered with caveats, such as:
"NOTE: MOST PEOPLE WHO [INSERT VICE OR UNHEALTHY BEHAVIOR] DO NOT GET DISEASE. THIS IS EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA, WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN WE SAY YOUR 'RISK' INCREASES TWOFOLD, WE MEAN IT INCREASES FROM 1 IN 100,000 TO 2 IN 100,000."
If people must read this kind of data, why would it be a bad thing for them to understand it? Couldn't it save us a good deal of hysteria about diseases? A person I worked with wore sunscreen every day, even in the winter, because she read somewhere that accumulated sunlight over a lifetime could give you cancer. The article, of course, failed to note that it was physically impossible to get a skin cancer from 300 years worth of two minute jaunts from the subway to her office building (which was about the extent of her daily exposure to the sun's rays). That's probably the press's fault, but I think the medical community has an obligation to make sure the press explains a story in full, instead of writing it in a manner to scare people. But no one does that, because they figure the hyper-vigilance of the deluded is good for the deluded's health. Seems like lying by ommission to me.
|
There are hypochondriacs everywhere. I thank god that my grandmother is in an HMO or else she'd be personally driving up Medicare to the tune of several million to get all the things that she thinks are wrong with her fixed. It escapes her notice that her parents both lived well into their ninties and that she's as healthy as a horse.
There
is despite your assertions to the contrary, an increased incidence of lung cancer and other illnesses associated with exposure to second hand smoke. It is neither irresponsible nor an over-reaction for public health officials or other public officials to try to minimize the risk of exposure in areas that they control, citing health reasons. Same goes for ozone. Most of the time the warnings are issued as such: sitting unprotected in the sun for too long can lead to an increased risk for cancer, wrinkles, melasma (my particular sun-related curse), etc.
If you want to really get into an interesting public health discussion, start thinking about the DDT ban's contribution to the increased incidence of malaria in countries that can ill afford to have their populations and health care systems strained.
