Flashback – Electro-pseudoscience

[In recent news from England “a poster for the charity Electrosensitivity-UK asked, “How safe is 5G?” They oppose the roll out of 5G technology and warned, without any scientific evidence, that it causes a “range of health effects such as ‘reduced male fertility, depression, disturbed sleep and headaches, as well as cancer’”.

This fear mongering is reminiscent of my posting in December 2014 titled “Fear of Power Lines.” This kind of panic based on bad science will keep coming up as long as a gullible public will buy into it.]

If you are old enough, you remember the big scare in the late 1980s about power lines causing cancer. In fact, if you are not old enough to remember the news reports at the time, you have probably heard about this idea from someone who was. There was a great deal of concern, but after over 30 years of further research, it appears to have been a mistaken assumption.  Still the fear persists.

This fairly short (7:46) NY Times Retro Report is worth watching.

It begins with replays of news reports from all the major networks from 1987.  It was big news at the time, and this reminder is very informative showing in retrospect how the news business operates when breaking news has the potential to stir up a lot of fear based on a very limited study.  A voice-over talks about how power lines may cause cancer while showing the picture of a small bald child, apparently battling cancer (but not from power lines) – sneaky.  When seven children in one Denver school developed cancer and parents blamed it on nearby power lines, one reporter said that it could be a “tragedy of enormous proportions.”

The Times calls the episode “Power of Fear” with the message that once this type of fear is introduced into our society it never really goes away.  

The researcher who first suspected the problem now explains that further research has ruled out any problem. With the number and density of power lines, this should have developed into a major health problem, but it didn’t. “That suspicion [of a cancer risk] was simply wrong...The likely impact [of power lines] is zero.”  

Scientists in the 1990s conducted hundreds of experiments exposing rats, other animals and human cells to intense EMFs (magnetic fields around the power lines) over long periods of time with no change in the cells.  “In 20 years of looking, no one has found a way that power line fields can do anything at all to cells of animals; unless it can do something to cells, it cannot cause cancer.” The National Academy of Sciences confirmed this by reviewing 500 studies and releasing their findings in October 1996. Nothing since then has altered the conclusion of no danger.

The association was always “suggestive, but very faint” but correlation does not prove causation. Yet the idea, the fear, persists and is still spread by some public figures, some advertisers who use the scare tactics to sell real estate service and by word of mouth – now enhanced by the reach and power of social media.

Why do some Americans believe these sources and continue to fear the presence of power lines? Psychologists tell us that risks that are invisible, that might cause suffering before death or that might affect children have uncanny staying power, even in the face of firm evidence to the contrary. This highlights the need for critical thinking, to put aside emotional responses and listen to the facts. Don’t we have enough stuff to be afraid of without dredging up errors from the past?

Own the Problem and Solve It

Sometimes there are easy solutions to situations, as long as the principle doesn’t get in the way.  If everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton donated $8.35 to Planned Parenthood once a year they wouldn’t need any government funding.  Problem solved for less than a couple of trips to Starbucks.  And if some of the 90 million who didn’t bother to vote in November joined in, the needed contribution would be even less.  Since the donations are tax deductible, a portion of the contribution would indirectly shifted back to the government.  It would be like stealth government funding.  Of course it’s the principle of the thing.   

Isn’t falling back on the principle of the thing a lot like whether it’s more work for the husband to put the toilet seat back down or for the wife to put it down herself?   Now that’s a worthwhile argument. 

Both cases fall under the heading of responsibility, taking ownership for what you see is the problem.  In the first case the problem is that everyone does not want to be forced to support a cause that some people strongly believe in.  If you don’t think your time protesting is not worth more than $8.35, you are undervaluing yourself.  And think of the anxiety avoided with one simple action of writing and mailing a check.  In the second case, if you really care about domestic tranquility, you make the effort – though it seems almost laughable to call it effort.  In general, if you really care, you don't let principle stand in the way of an easy fix.

But Americans are falling more and more away from taking responsibility for problems that are under their own control.  That's when the law steps in and everyone loses.

“Apple could be facing a class action lawsuit in California, demanding they find a technological solution to prevent their customers from texting and driving."  It stems from a fatal crash caused by the other driver using FaceTime while driving.  First of all, FaceTime is not texting.  Second, how does the phone know if you are driving or just riding in a car (or on a train)?  Finally, and most important, why should Apple or any other company be held responsible for the reckless behavior of their customers? 

In America the last question is never dealt with.  It is just assumed that if a customer misuses a product, it’s the company’s fault for not anticipating every inane use for their product.  For proof of this, look up dumb product warning labels on the Internet.  So much extra time and expense with lawyers and labels to avoid being sued by irresponsible people who refuse to admit to a mistake made by individuals, themselves or others.

But we have not yet gotten as bad a France where they just passed a law making it illegal for restaurants to offer free refills of soft drinks (even if you are not fat and really thirsty).

But that’s what happens.  When a sizable number of citizens act irresponsibly the lawmakers go to work to protect us or steer us in the right direction.  We lose our free choices because so many previous free choices have been poor ones.  So many problems can be easily solved by taking responsibility and so much freedom lost by ignoring those opportunities.

Objectives and Accountability

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.”  Everyone should recognize those as the words of John Kennedy.  When he made this declaration, it was, and still is, uncharacteristic of a governmental action.  It had a specific objective, to get a man safely to the moon and back.  It had a clear timeframe, by the end of the 1960s.  Everyone in the world would know if the US achieved its objective and would hold us accountable.  Such a commitment requires the people involved to develop a project plan with steps and milestones to be achieved by certain points along the way.  If these milestones are not achieved, an investigation of the causes for delay or failure leads to adjustments or mid-course corrections.

Now I look at other government programs and private charities and wish for some movement in this direction.  Of course, I alone wishing is not going to make it happen, but with a nation full of critical thinkers, the pressure would be on to produce and publicize results and not rely on the feel-good messages that are intended to hook us and separate us from our votes or our dollars in pursuit of a noble, but vague cause.

The War on Poverty did not meet the same criteria.  It had an objective stated clearly by Lyndon Johnson in his State of the Union address:  “"Our aim is not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it."  Missing was a timeframe, so today we are still fighting.  No milestones have been set and mid-course corrections are ad hoc, moving us no closer to the objective.  Each one looks like a caring effort, so they are accepted as the right thing to do, but they don’t have objectives or timeframes of their own, so no measurement or critique follows.

This graph below shows that from implementation in 1967 to 2009, little progress has been made – the comparable 2013 census number was 14.5%.  not setting a timeframe leaves things wide open.

 A key program of the War on Poverty was Food Stamps, now renamed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.  Though “supplemental” is part of the name, we still hear many politicians and reporters complaining that you can’t feed a family on the amounts provided.  The expectation, the objective seems unclear or it has changed in some people’s minds.  No wonder there is confusion.

Many charities have a similar issue.  The recommended way to judge them is by how much they pass along compared to how much they spend on salaries, advertising and other administration.  What about results?  Some charities are very clear about where the money goes, how many people they feed, how many trees they plant, etc.  On the other hand, if you give money to a charity to find a cure for a disease, do you know where the money goes?  What research is being supported?  How does that research relate to curing the disease?  When we hear on the news that a new breakthrough has been achieved toward the cure of a disease, they never tell us where the money came from to support the research.  How much coordination is there between research organizations vs. how much competition?  Is the competition a good thing, motivating scientists to strive harder, or is it counterproductive motivating them to hide partial findings?  It is surprising how much we don’t know once we have finished the walk and handed in the pledge cards.  It’s also surprising how few people are even curious about it.

Others promise to help veterans or to eliminate domestic violence, but the details are missing.  What veterans?  Help with what?  What are the plans for beneficial domestic violence interventions?  They can’t be held accountable with no measurable objectives.  When no one really knows how much progress is made with the donated funds, does it really matter what percent is used for administration?

Critical thinking makes us curious to get the facts, keeps us asking the next question instead of being swept away by the good feelings and virtuous intentions of the politicians and fundraisers.  More questioning holds them accountable, which results in better programs and more successes.