Words Matter

I don’t watch many ads on TV, but I happened to see this one near the end of a football game last week. It was one of those public relations ads from Exxon Mobile telling what a wonderful job they were doing developing biofuel from algae. Someday this fuel will be used to power planes, ships and trucks “and cut their emissions in half.”

Wait a minute; something is not right here! Biofuels are carbon-based. When they burn, they emit mostly carbon dioxide. The only way to cut emissions in half is for the same amount of fuel to produce twice the energy as traditional diesel or jet fuel. That involves a factor called energy density.

Now biofuel is generally good. It comes from plants that extract CO₂ from the atmosphere. When biofuel burns it releases the same CO₂ back into the atmosphere, so it is considered to be carbon neutral. 

The downside is that first generation biofuels, such as ethanol, are produced from edible crops. They require a lot of space to grow and a lot of energy to plant, harvest and transport.

Biofuels processed from algae are a second-generation biofuel, similar to fuel made from the inedible and discarded part of a food crop, such as cornhusks or switch grass. The advantage is that food and fuel do not compete with each other, as when ethanol is made from corn.  And the production consumes “small amounts of energy while producing considerable fuel output.”

Other advantages are that algae production is efficient, in that, it can be grown “in almost any climate thanks to the open- or closed-tank approaches that are available today. As long as we can provide this natural product with enough sunlight to create photosynthesis, then it has the capability to grow quickly.” It is a renewable energy source that can be refined into a variety of products, and it can yield almost five times more fuel per acre than sugar cane or corn.

Two major disadvantages according to the same source are that it currently requires about 20% more energy to grow than it yields and production cost is still higher than the alternatives.

Exxon Mobile confronts the skeptics by citing partnerships with several major universities and a private firm to use gene technology and other research to build on the advantages and overcome many of the disadvantages. It looks promising, but they still “face some significant technical hurdles before biofuels production from algae will be possible at a significant commercial scale.”

The question remains about the claim of half the emissions. All fuel from wood and manure to jet fuel has a characteristic called energy density. “Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume or mass.”  Gasoline has an energy density of about 45 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg). “Ethanol produces 30 megajoules/kilogram.” For that reason, a car will go farther on a gallon of pure gasoline than it will on a gallon of ethanol or any mix of ethanol and gasoline. Adding ethanol at the pump reduces MPG.

This 2011 paper from Stanford gives the energy density of algae-based biofuel at 20-25 MJ/kg, about half that of gasoline. Even if the research at Exxon Mobile’s partners could double it to equal that of gasoline or diesel, it would still be far short of their claim of cutting the emission of planes, ships and trucks in half. 

Deeper reading at the Exxon Mobile site gives the answer: “If key research hurdles are overcome, algal biofuels will have about 50 percent lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum-derived fuel.” The saving is not in emissions but in the energy expended during the entire production and delivery process.

The claim in the ad is inconsistent with that explanation thus is really inaccurate. Perhaps the advertising firm misunderstood, or the company just dumbed it down for football fans. In either case, I love it when I’m right!

Climate Change: Overlooking the Details

You can’t really call it a lie, but when people who should know better spread misinformation, it feels like the same thing. The latest example came a few days ago on the national news when a reporter said the Paris Climate Accords “set global standards” for emissions. This is clearly incorrect. The agreement consists of a compilation of NDCs, Nationally Determined Contributions. They are not a global standard but targets set by each individual country, i.e., nationally determined, with no enforcement mechanism for those who fall short and no authority to reject a proposal as inadequate. (Follow this link to access all of the individual NDCs. See this link for a Washington Post article praising the “few countries” that are meeting the standards they set for themselves.)

This is a common misunderstanding of the agreement that leads to unnecessary handwringing over the fact that the United States is no longer a signatory. Despite that withdrawal, according to the EPA the green house gas emissions by the US are decreasing and are lower today than they were in 1996.

Meanwhile, while everyone is worrying about carbon dioxide, criticizing all the SUVs on the roads, a far more powerful greenhouse gas is flying under the radar of public interest. The BBC warns, “It's the most powerful greenhouse gas known to humanity, and emissions have risen rapidly in recent years.” Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a gas used by the electrical industry in the switching equipment in power stations, wind turbines and sub-stations to prevent short circuits, fires and other accidents. “In terms of warming potential, SF6 is 23,500 [times] more powerful than CO₂."

It is intended by design to remain contained within the insulator, but problems arise when leaks occur and evidence shows that they are occurring regularly as the global use of the gas “is expected to grow by 75% by 2030.” BBC puts the amount of leaking in the UK alone at the equivalent of an “extra 1.3 million cars on the road.” And the reason for the growth is a need for more of the switching equipment driven by the increase in sustainable power, such as wind and solar.

Here in the US, the EPA is aware of the problem, and Pacific Power & Gas is one of the utilities with plans to solve it. Fixing a single SF6 leak has an average cost of $25,000, so they are looking for alternatives and expect to have the problem solved in their business region by 2030.

Make no mistake; with so many more sources, carbon dioxide is still a far larger problem than SF6. But where is the balance? Why do we hear about the benefits of wind and solar while the drawbacks are ignored? Why do we hear the “dangers” of nuclear power while its remarkably  safe history is glossed over? Why are we urged to panic over unsigned Climate Accords when the truth is far more nuanced? 

Essential Oils and Climate Change

To try to win an informal debate, I remember hearing a woman once say, “I don’t care what the scientists say; I just feel better when I eat gluten free.” I also happened to know that this same person took the opposite view on climate change. She was convinced that climate change was a real, impending disaster based on information that the vast majority of climate scientists agreed on the premise.

Furthermore anyone who held a different view on climate change would be condemned, labeled a “denier,” someone whose opinion on that or any other subject should be disregarded because they were stupid. But it was not enough to ignore them. Anyone who disagrees in the least must be branded, cast out, unfriended or otherwise ostracized for the good of the world.

Using the opposite arguments in defense of two strongly held points of view did not faze her or the people she associated with at all. On one hand, science was good; on the other, science was too skeptical of the ancient wisdom or the latest fad.

Speaking of the latest fad, one that has been going strong for the last few years is a belief in the power of essential oils.

Although the name might imply it, there is nothing particularly essential about an essential oil, in the sense of it being necessary for life. The name comes from the fact that the oils extracted, usually by fermentation, contain the essence of a plant’s fragrance.

As this article written by a scientist, professor at McGill University with a PhD in Chemistry, explains, most of the claims about the powers of essential oils are unproven, untrue, misrepresented or exaggerated. For example, promoters claim that “either sniffing the right essential oil or rubbing it on the skin can support the immune system, enhance mood, promote sleep, cleanse the body’s organs, boost the libido, ease breathing, foster alertness, treat kidney stones, oxygenate the blood, relieve pain, reduce anger, prevent constipation and, of course, eliminate toxins, … readjust chakras, harmonize bio-electrical frequencies, cleanse negative energies, drive out evil spirits and promote sexual stimulation.”

He explains that a few of these are backed by evidence, such as using lavender aroma as a sleep aid. Many of the other claims have resulted in warnings to companies by the FDA, but that can’t control all the outrageous claims. “Sales of essential oils are dominated by multi-level marketing (MLM) companies,” who sell to independent distributors relying on commissions. No one can monitor what every one of these sellers promises in private conversations. 

Once again it is so easy to ignore the science, or simply not ask what studies have confirmed the seemingly magical powers. Take it on faith.

Interesting how, in one particular realm, scientific consensus is considered a strong argument in favor, with any minor expression of doubt leading to the accusation of being a denier. Meanwhile, in so many others areas, from psychic powers to performance bracelets to the healing power of magnets to detox cleanses to super foods to essential oils, taking the opposite stance is the favored response. No deniers there! No critical thinking either.

Can’t Stand the Heat?

Early last week the Energy Star program people released recommendations on home heating and cooling. The reaction was swift and negative.

I could not find a date on this posting, but I know that for many years the recommended residential temperature setting has been the same as presented there. “The U.S. Department of Energy recommends that home temperature be set to 68 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter and 78 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. When no one is home, adjust temperatures to cooler settings in the winter and warmer settings in the summer.” For a long time it was no big deal. Many utilities have been subsidizing the cost of a programmable thermostat to facilitate meeting this pattern of adjustment.

But for some reason when Energy Star, a program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, last week came out with the idea of setting the summer temperature at 78 degrees to save energy during the spring and summer, ABC news said it “surprised” the Internet. They went on to post numerous tweets protesting 78 degrees as too hot.

MSN expanded on the story. “The Energy Star program recommends that people increase their air conditioning by seven degrees when they are not at home and by four degrees when they are sleeping, depending on what temperature makes them comfortable.” That translates to 85 degrees when you are out and 82 degrees when you are sleeping, or trying to sleep. The story explains how it went “viral,” in a negative way, and included another set of Twitter examples.

One says: “WHO CAN STAND 80+ DEGREES WHEN THEY'RE SLEEPING I WOULD MELT TO DEATH.” Another is concerned about the dog’s comfort if the temperature is set up during the day. One example on both sites asks, “You know how hot 78 degrees is?” 

Well, the answer is yes, I do know how hot 78 is – and so do many other people. It was not that long ago that home air conditioning was not all that common. The number of houses with central air conditioning rose from 19% in 1973 to 72% in 2009. I could not find numbers for the 1960s, but a reasonable guess would be about 10% or less. According to Consumer Reports, today “more than 75 percent of U.S. homes use air conditioning, and 90 percent of new homes are equipped with central air.” 

Most of the complainers are not old enough to remember the days of no air conditioning when city folks sat out on the fire escapes at night, and others set up mattresses in the cooler basements, when breaks from the summer heat consisted of opening a fire hydrant or going to the pool or to one of the few air conditioned buildings in town, the movie theater. 

That was reality only a couple of generations ago! Somehow the majority of people struggled through. No one melted to death. Dogs weren’t dying at home while everyone was at school or work. If it was hot at night, too bad. It’s true that 82 degrees is not nearly the ideal temperature for sleeping, but having to sleep at that temperature or higher in the past, because there was no other choice, did not result in mass extinction!

Several news outlets that released the Energy Star guidelines mentioned also that July was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth. This links the renewed recommendation with climate change efforts, where everyone is expected to do their share – except they don’t want to. It’s the Al Gore philosophy – express a ton of concern about the planet, then go about business as usual.

This entire episode shows why perspective is so important. Without it, gratitude is lost. Technology is moving ahead so fast that everyday life of a few generations ago seems like ancient history. Minor inconveniences become major hardships. People don’t stop to think how lucky we are to have air conditioning almost everywhere. Instead they fly to Twitter to rail on about the injustice of it all.

Being Afraid of the Wrong Things

A few days ago, a headline appeared in Science Daily: “Why do we love bees but hate wasps?” It’s an interesting question and the reason seems totally emotional.

“Both bees and wasps are two of humanity's most ecologically and economically important organisms. They both pollinate our flowers and crops, but wasps also regulate populations of crop pests and insects that carry human diseases.” But their survey showed that almost everyone sees bees as the good guys and wasps as scary and unwelcome. Although, both are known to sting humans, bees are associated with honey and wasps only with stinging. The researchers assert that this universal antipathy “is most likely due to a low-level interest in nature and a lack of knowledge about the benefits wasps bring to our planet's health and function.”

One example of the pest control aspect was a hornworm I found on one of my tomato plants the other day. It was no longer eating leaves because it had become a meal for many wasp larvae. Wasps are our friends.

Wasps are one example of things we should not be afraid of, but the fear of wasps doesn’t have a devastating effect on the future, beyond the fact that all pollinators should be encouraged to thrive in the interest of our future food supply. But there are other examples that are far more crucial.

One is nuclear power. People are scared of nuclear power. They hear of a nuclear power plant and picture a mushroom cloud, a Chernobyl-like meltdown or a disaster from an earthquake or tsunami. This attitude put the brakes on the development of nuclear power in the US 40 years ago. The German government decided to shut down nuclear plants and revert to coal in the face of “mass anti-nuclear protests…in the wake [of the] Fukushima event. Hence, Germans are giving up a source of non-polluting energy with a much smaller physical footprint than wind or solar. Back at home, as Americans have seen firsthand major technological advances in computers, telephones, transportation, and so many other areas, they have been stuck on the assumption that nuclear technology would have been stagnant since the 1970s. Had we adopted a different attitude then, it’s quite likely that the majority of our energy problems today would have been solved.

Another example is GMOs. Last month I wrote about the effects unreasonable fears of GMOs have on the world’s food supply. Americans are demanding labeling on packaging, so they know what they are eating. In Europe the government agencies confirm the safety of GMOs, while public opinion prevents their spread. People are starving in poorer countries for lack of food while the rich and middle class in the richer countries fuss about imaginary dangers.

Finally, add the idea of irradiating food for safety. From the FDA: “Irradiation does not make foods radioactive, compromise nutritional quality, or noticeably change the taste, texture, or appearance of food.” The technology “improves the safety and extends the shelf life of foods by reducing or eliminating microorganisms and insects.” It doesn’t make food glow in the dark; it makes it safer to eat. 

But when people hear anything that sounds like radiation, they panic; unaware perhaps, that all the sunshine they were soaking up on vacation a few weeks ago is also radiation. The vast majority wants it labeled, just in case. Then, when people avoid it and it doesn’t sell, we are all exposed to less safe food!

All these fears stem from the same source, captured in the above article about wasps, “a low-level interest in” science in general “and a lack of knowledge.”

The real cause for concern as we move further into the 21^st Century should be how public opinion will continue to work against public welfare. When we allow the "activists" and fear-mongers to keep winning, where does it lead?

Not Enough Babies!

Oh, no!  We're running out of people!

The Washington Post, along with several other news outlets reported a few weeks ago that the birth rate in the US is down. It fell 1% from 2015 to 2016. Why is this news? Is it a problem?

 Apparently it is. The article says we are “in the midst of what some worry is a baby crisis.” The birth rate has been declining for years and is now at a historic low according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some predict it will result in “economic and cultural turmoil” and that “there's a danger that we wouldn't be able to replace the aging workforce and have enough tax revenue to keep the economy stable.”

The workforce issue could be a worry if the birthrate falls and stays below the replacement level, unless robots fill some of those jobs that the aging workforce leaves. Of course, the idea of robots taking jobs is another of the worries that the news media presents as a potential crisis! But maybe it would be a good thing.

With robots doing the work, there would not be enough human workers to pay into the Social Security fund that the retirees draw from. But that is already a problem, a flaw in the design of the program rather than a crisis brought about by not enough babies. It is compounded by the inadequate savings of many older Americans, but fewer children would cost parents less and with a little more discipline the may be averted.

Then there is the fact that as economies strengthen and the standard of living improves it is natural for parents to have fewer children. Populations migrate from farm to city, and the childhood survival rate improves as healthcare improves. It happens in every country, not just here. According to the article countries that already have low birthrates are fighting this trend by putting “pro-family policies into place to try to encourage couples to have babies.” 

That smacks of yet another government attempt to sway individual decisions – there is already a tax break for having children and assistance payments are calculated on a per child basis.  Now should programs like mandatory parent leave be added? Do we have people in Washington (or anywhere) capable of fine-tuning the birthrate by turning on and off programs and regulations? Even if we did, is it politically realistic to expect that such benefits could easily be turned off? 

At the same time we have a distress call every summer that children are out of school and will be going hungry because they no longer get free breakfasts and lunches. Charitable organizations are putting together programs to address this problem.  Would more babies compound this problem?  

Finally, since everyone is worried about climate change, isn’t having fewer people burning fossil fuel, otherwise adding to greenhouse gases by eating meat and generally using up the earth’s resources a good thing? Technically, your children and grandchildren are part of your carbon footprint. Maybe this is another case of wanting to clean up the planet by letting someone else do it.

The news media are always eager to pick up on the worries of certain experts even if they seem to conflict with the worries of other experts.  This sounds like another crisis where the experts have already made up their minds about the problem and course of action without looking at the many trade offs and contradictions – puzzling.

The Upside of Climate Change

Is the climate changing?  Of course the climate is changing.  It has been changing for the last six billion years.

Is it getting warmer?  The temperature trend seems to be in that direction, so there is no reason to doubt that it is also getting warmer.

The problem is that all the news reports seem to stress that a changing climate is a bad thing, that warmer is a bad thing, and that it’s entirely our fault.  Humans had the nerve to act in a way that’s destroying the earth and should feel guilty about it.  We are destroying the planet for our children and grandchildren.  Every additional temperature reading becomes breaking news.  And the President not signing a piece of paper in Paris somehow has an immediate negative effect. 

The argument continues that the changed climate will result in extremes – more cold days, more hot days, more storms and bigger storms.  Unfortunately, the data do not bear this out.   A graph in Wikipedia of the number of hurricanes affecting the US by decade clearly shows variability, not an upward trend.  Annual reported tornadoes compiled by NOAA from 1954 to 2014 shows the same.

Yet every time part of the US, especially the East Coast, experiences some weather extreme, an analyst, reporter or expert is sure to cite climate change.  This is a lazy argument.  Too hot weather proves climate change; too cold weather proves climate change; too windy weather shows the same, all the time implying that it’s a terrible thing, not just for those who built houses too close to the beach, but for everyone.  Critical thinkers should demand better evidence.

We are led to the conclusion that the climate we have is the best of all possible climates and that it’s down hill from here no matter what.  Isn’t there anything positive to be said about climate change?  As it turns out, there are at least a couple of potential benefits.

“Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.” (Source:  Lancet)

 Chris D. Thomas is a professor of conservation at University of York and “one of the world’s most influential ecologists” according to the biography at the end of his book Inheritors of the Earth.  On page 6 of that book he says, “More species like it hot than cold, and so the overall consequence of a warmer climate is to raise biological diversity in many parts of the world.”

So the possibility of fewer people dying because of the weather is a good thing.  Biological diversity is also considered a good thing.  Maybe the experts and the media should take some time out from their constant catastrophizing and handwringing to take a look at the bright side.  The climate has been changing for millions of years; humans have been adapting for tens of thousands of years.   Maybe it's not going to be as bad as the purveyors of doom-and-gloom predict.

Consider The Source

When I was in high school, our English (language arts?) teacher taught us to challenge everything we read.  See who the author is.  Does he or she have the expertise required?  Is there a hidden agenda or built-in bias?  How does this come across in the story, book or report?

Now here is a story that hit the news earlier in the week.  I picked it up from Yahoo News, but it also appeared in Forbes, the AP and several other outlets.  “Many Google employees have expressed outrage over a document in which a senior Google engineer reportedly claims that biological gender differences make women less effective programmers and argues that the company should not actively work to improve diversity in staffing.”

Wait a minute!  This guy is a computer engineer.  Do we expect him to know anything about biological gender differences?  I certainly don’t.  In fact, the statement shows that he is somewhat ignorant on the subject.  Later in the article it states: “There is no evidence that women are inherently less skilled coders than men.” Additionally, about a year ago the Guardian published the results of a study showing that a peer review of work “approved code written by women at a higher rate than code written by men, but only if the gender was not disclosed.” 

(This is the same kind of gender bias that infected many symphony orchestras until they started holding auditions behind a screen.  It also shows up when we hear of a female visual artist after being  overlooked for many years finally getting recognition.  What were the critics looking at instead of the pictures?  The problem has clearly not been confined to Silicon Valley.)

The conclusion in this case:  He doesn’t know what he is talking about.  He has no particular expertise in the field.  This is easy – consider the source.  The leaders of the company should take him aside and require behavior that does not reflect this error in judgment or if they didn’t think that was possible, fire him.  No outrage necessary.  Problem solved.  (As it turned out, he was fired.)

But also consider this next paragraph of the story.  “The document is a personal statement not sanctioned in any way by the company, but has been circulating widely within Google.”  Of course it’s been widely circulated.  You can’t be outraged without sharing your outrage with as many other people as possible.  That’s no fun.  And the media likes nothing better than a case of outrage to feature in headlines to help spread the outrage around.  This becomes not a Google issue to deal with, but another national crisis.

In America, the truth is no longer something sought out and discovered.  The truth is voted upon – by voice vote, usually shouting.  If you are outraged, you tweet or post on Facebook or start a petition.  The point is to get likes and shares and signatures and others shouting about it.  Spread the outrage!  That’s how you win for your point of view.  It’s not a matter of a simple counterargument with better facts.  Especially when there are no legitimate facts to support a particular point of view, outrage becomes the only avenue.  Unfortunately it has become a habit, even among those who, as in this case, are clearly in the right and have the facts on their side.

Maybe we need a little less outrage, which can easily turn into bullying to cut off all debate, and more actual conversation.  Maybe we need Americans to follow the consider-the-source rule and not cling to the pronouncements of every actor, musician, politician or scientist with a different field of specialization on subjects they are not in the least bit qualified to represent, for example, economics, climate, nutrition and vaccinations.  Sure, they have a right to express opinions, but the fact that their opinion is no more valid than almost anyone else’s too often goes unchallenged.

Linked To Does NOT Mean Causes

Recently I came across this Washington Post headline:  “59,000 farmer suicides in India over 30 years may be linked to climate change, study says.”  The article explains that a researcher looked back almost 50 years comparing data and climate information and “concluded that temperature may have ‘a strong influence’ on suicide rates during the growing season.”  Note the words “may have a strong [but unspecified] influence.”  The researcher goes on to project an increase in the number of “lives lost to self-harm” in India.

What are we to make of this?  The number of suicides correlates to the temperature.  Is Global Warming to blame?

Correlation is a mathematical expression of how closely any two measurements move relative to each other.  If the first one gets larger at exactly the same rate as the second, the correlation equals 1, a perfect positive correlation.  If the first one decreases at exactly the same rate that the second increases, the correlation equals -1, a perfect negative correlation.

In our imperfect world this rarely happens, so a correlation of 90% seems to indicate that the two measurements are moving very closely together.  A correlation close to zero shows no mathematical relationship.  The math is not difficult.  A laptop can do it easily and show the graph with points either closely tracking each other for a strong correlation or looking like a random scattering of points for a weak (near zero) correlation.

The most important thing to understand about correlation is that correlation is not causation!  This is a major point of emphasis in every first year statistics class.  Just because two things vary together, they are not necessarily related in any way.

Lots of things get bigger together and are related, like the size of a tree and the amount of lumber available from the tree or the number of pizzas (or amount of beer) needed to feed guests at a party – more people = more pizza.  Gas mileage (MPG) may be related to the size of a truck, the power of the engine or the weight of the load.  These correlations are easy to explain.

When two measures are correlated, sometimes one influences the other, or perhaps they are both affected by some unseen common factor.  Often though, two measures are mathematically related but have no logical link.  Some websites specialize in finding odd examples of these supposed relationships.

Here is one I’ve used before telling about a study correlating dog ownership with eating eggrolls, eating cabbage with having an innie bellybutton, and many others.  Another site, with lovely graphs, correlates the divorce rate in Maine with consumption of margarine, consumption of cheese with the number of people who died by becoming tangled in their bed sheets and several more entertaining examples.  There is the joking relationships between the stock market and skirt lengths or the stock market and the conference of the team that won the last Super Bowl.  I wrote last year about the journalist who compared many measurements and found a surprising correlation between eating dark chocolate and weight loss in one data set.  He later admitted that it was bad science and should not be taken seriously.  If you look hard enough, you can find all kinds of weird examples of data that correlate just by coincidence.  That’s what makes it tricky.

The use of correlation is quite common in studies about health and other areas.  Studies find a mathematical relationship and use the magic word linked.  An action or habit is linked to a healthy or unhealthy outcome.  Eating A is linked to longer or shorter life.  Researchers find relationships that may be the direct, pizza supply to number-of-guests, kind or it may be the cheese to death-by-bed-sheets kind.  But at that point it's only math, not reality.

This is what came to mind when I saw that headline.  To be fair, the researcher tries to explain how there can be an other-than-mathematical relationship.  “High temperatures in the growing season reduce crop yields, putting economic pressure on India's farmers.”  I think any farmer can tell you that weather often increases economic pressure, but how often does that lead to suicide?  Don’t we need more than just two sets of numbers to compare on a graph?  Is this reality or just math?

Whenever critical thinkers hear the word linked, they know someone has found a mathematical relationship.  Researchers hope to discover a real relationship so they can use the word causes, as in action A causes outcome B, but that is much more difficult.  Understanding this is very important to keep from panicking over the latest headline, insisting that someone do something or trying to persuade friends and family to change eating habits to avoid catastrophe.  You don’t have to be a math or statistical wizard to know that linked is not necessarily the same as causes.