Do Seatbelts Really Save Lives?

 A little over a year ago, I retired this blog with a final summary. But I just can't keep quiet about some of the craziness out there.

I know the news agencies thrive on picking and choosing what they tell us and then telling us in a way that supports their political narrative. That can be expected. But when they, apparently unwittingly, present real information in the form of misleading headlines, it appears someone is not thinking things through.

Recently CBS (and others) came out with this news story about inadequate seatbelt warnings. The headline reads, "47% of people killed were not wearing a seatbelt." This gives people who do not want to wear their seatbelts a perfect argument that 53% percent of people killed were wearing a seatbelt - very little difference. So what's the big deal? The headline is not only not persuasive, it can be turned on itself to draw the exact opposite conclusion.

What needs to be said is that about 10% of people choose not to wear their seatbelt, but people not wearing seatbelts account for almost half the people killed in auto accidents. That means your chance of dying are about nine times higher if you don't buckle up. That's quite a difference from the implied comparison of 47% to 53%!

With use of seatbelts actually declining in recent years, wasn't anybody at CBS paying attention to the possible misinterpretation of their message? Poorly presented news is little better than fake news.

Science Illiteracy is Real

Earlier this month results of a worldwide survey, the 3M State of Science Index, made a few headlines.  It asked participants a number of questions to discover the general attitudes toward science: do people trust science, do they find it scary, do they take science for granted, do they think science is generally good or bad.  The results were mixed, but disturbing enough to motivate former astronaut Scott Kelly to begin a project promoting an appreciation of science.

After hearing of this survey, I went to the source and found a 46-page slide presentation with the detailed results.  One of the two key findings appears on page 10: “People are unaware of the impact of science in their everyday lives.”  More detail is given below that heading: “Nearly two out of five (38%) believe that if science didn’t exist, their everyday lives wouldn’t be that different." 

It’s hard to believe that people living in the twenty-first century could be so out of touch.  It’s true that it was an international survey and not specifically broken down by country, but they do show a “Science trust index” for each of the 14 countries based on the overall answers and the US comes in very close to the average.  We could attribute this misunderstanding of the benefits of science to the fact that most people (66%) spend little or no time thinking about science. But it’s still hard to believe!

This is extremely unsettling and so easy to confront. It isn’t about the Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.  Just think about the ideas of two people and about two contrasting events.

The two people are Ignaz Semmelweis and Thomas Malthus .  One was right and the other wrong.

In 1847 while working in a Vienna hospital, Semmelweis observed that the ward where doctors delivered babies had a 10% mortality rate for new mothers, three times the rate of the ward where midwives worked.  After checking many factors he hit upon the fact that the doctors were moving directly between performing autopsies and delivering babies. He suggested that everyone wash hands before entering an obstetrics ward.  As obvious as that sounds today, “his ideas were rejected by the medical community."  They weren’t accepted until after his death when Pasteur and Lister did further work with germ theory – more science.  Common advice today is to wash your hand before eating, and it's based on science.

Thomas Malthus, an Englishman, lived around the time of the American Revolution and believed the increase in food production could not keep pace with the increase in population, leading to famines and a stagnant standard of living.  "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man."  He believed that since land was limited, food production could never keep up.  Science, however, proved him wrong, allowing farmers to grow enough for a world population of nearly nine billion with a standard of living he never would have imagined.  His name has become synonymous with baseless pessimism, but up to fifty years ago others were preaching the same gloom and doom about overpopulation.

Developments like these contributed largely to the increase (almost doubling) in life expectancy during the 20^th century.

The two events were the 1918 flu epidemic and the H1N1 scare of 2009.  The first was a worldwide disaster as reported here by the Washington Post.  “Experts believe between 50 and 100 million people were killed” by the flu epidemic in 1918 including 675,000 in the United States.  By contrast, what the media called a pandemic in 2009 resulted in between 10,000 and 12,000 deaths.  That is less than 2% of the devastation from 90 years earlier.  Numbers for this year will not be available until next year, but it’s certain that this flu season, again labeled an epidemic and hyped daily in the news for months, will result in fewer deaths.

What we have today are flu shots, better drugs and advanced medical procedures to treat the complications that arise from the flu particularly in seniors and young children.  We owe that kind of progress, those lives saved, to science.

These are just some quick examples.  In 2018 a person cannot go five minutes without encountering some contribution science has made to our lives. The effect of science on our lives goes beyond everyday conveniences; it’s the reason many of us are alive. This lack of appreciation is not only a sign of ignorance, but it causes people to make costly and dangerous errors about their health and safety.

Risk Adaptation

Several years ago I mentioned partially in jest to my sister, at the time an elementary school teacher, that the stock market was doomed.  With all the safety features being implemented on playgrounds and other facilities for children, by the time they reached adulthood they would be too risk averse to want to invest in anything other than guaranteed accounts.  Farewell, stock market and entrepreneurship.

She immediately set me straight.  With padded playgrounds, instead of hanging upside down by their knees from the monkey bars, they were now hanging by one leg.  Reduce the risk; increase the risk taking.

That same idea came up again when I began to see the relationship between automobile safety features and careless driving.  And this is not new.

An article from 2006 tells of Researchers at Purdue, led by a civil engineering professor, that “determined that airbags and antilock braking systems do not reduce the likelihood of accidents or injuries because they may encourage more aggressive driving.”  The feeling back then was that drivers adapt to the new technology giving up some responsibility for safety “by becoming less vigilant.”

By 2012 technology and safety features and enhancements other than air bags and anti-lock braking systems became more common as they migrated to more cars from the luxury brands.  Some of these were vehicle crumple zones, stricter seat belt enforcement, side-impact protection, traction control, and better conceived speed limits.  According to another source, these were “all designed to save lives and make driving a less risky activity. However, despite all these safety measures, road accidents and fatalities have remained constant over the last few decades.”

Traditionally, safety innovations begin at the luxury level and work their way down, but today some of the autonomous vehicle research also contributes to the new technology.  Today we are beginning to see more backup cameras, collision mitigation systems, lane departure warning systems, blind-spot monitors, and drowsiness detection monitors.  Guess what!  A July article from Carfax cites their in-house study finding “that some drivers, especially younger drivers, may come to over rely on car technology safety features rather than basic safe driving habits.”

And just a few weeks later in an article principally about self-driving cars the Seattle Times confirms, “Driver-assist technology that keeps cars in their lanes, maintains a safe distance from other vehicles, warns of unseen traffic and slams the brakes to avoid rear-end crashes are rapidly spreading from luxury cars…But these automated aids aimed at improving safety are having an unintended consequence: They’re degrading driving skills.”  Drivers become lax through over-reliance on newer and newer technology.  Through interviews they confirmed that most drivers agreed that people tend to quickly become so comfortable with the technology that they would pay more attention to it than relying on their own driving skills; for example, listening for the warning chime instead of looking over their shoulder to check the blind spot.  But, of course as in most interviews, it’s always the other guy.

Driving is dangerous.  Better cars and better roads can’t totally change that.  This adaptation behind the wheel is as irresponsible as the grade-schoolers hanging upside-down by one leg, except if they slip they only hurt themselves, not their passengers or others on the road.

It’s also interesting to suppose where else this tendency to over-rely on technology may be leading, places where it's not so obvious because the consequences are subtler, hidden or delayed.

Why Be Responsible?

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times.  In fact I probably have said it one hundred times, because out of about 630 little essays here, this is the 107^th that refers to the subject of responsibility; specifically, when you don’t exercise responsibility, you give up some of your freedom because someone is always eager to step in and take over the job for you.

In many cases the helper, the one seeing to it that your careless actions don’t hurt you or someone else, is the government.  In those case the irresponsible actions of a few result either in an additional cost to everyone, an additional restriction on everyone’s actions or both.  In the latest case it is probably just a minor cost, but the example is revealing.

It seems a few people buckle their children into the child safety seat in the back seat of the car on a hot day, drive to their destination and walk away, forgetting the child is locked in a potentially dangerous car.  According to Reuters this has resulted in 800 accidental deaths since 1990.  Now that’s a long period of time, but small steps may save the lives of about 40 children a year.  (It has happened 9 times already this year and the summer temperatures are just beginning in many parts of the country.)

In response, three lawmakers in Washington have proposed a new regulation requiring that automakers install “devices to remind drivers to check their back seats for passengers before getting out.”  Safety experts agree and General Motors will already include this feature in a few high-end 2018 models.  This should not be much of a challenge or a cost.  It requires a bell or a light on the dashboard as a check-the-back-seat reminder when the car is turned off.  It should be easy as there are so many lights and bells in cars today warning of open doors, unfastened seatbelts, front airbags, etc.

One concern would be whether such a system would be easy to grow accustomed to and ignore, although some might find it helpful to remind them of a briefcase riding in the back seat.  Also, unless all the cars were recalled, it would take about 20 years to be universally installed and in that time we could lose hundreds more children.

Of course, true to the new American mythology of an excuse for everything, we are assured that it’s not really our fault.  We are too stressed out.  From Consumers Union:  “Dr. David Diamond, the director of the Neuroscience Collaborative Program and Center for Preclinical and Clinical Research on PTSD at the University of South Florida, noted that competing brain functions can cause a parent to lose awareness that their child is in the car.”  He blames the negligent acts on “flaws in the brain.”

The cost is unknown.  Congress rarely thinks about these small costs when imposing more regulations.  But if this simple fix costs less than five dollars per car, then based on annual sales of about 10 million vehicles with back seats (16 million minus some pickups and sports cars), the total cost would be under $50 million, less than or about $1.25 million for each child saved.  This would be reasonable, based on the assumption that no one ever knowingly leaves a kid in the carseat to run a quick errand. 

But that’s $50 million per year not available to spend on other things – there’s always a trade off.  What would we rather spend that money on if a few people didn’t have this "brain flaw" that interfered with their behavior as responsible parents?

The final concern is that when this is successful in saving a few lives, Washington will continue to feel duty bound to take on more of our irresponsible behavior with costs and restrictions, like this suggestion by a professor at the Boston University School of Medicine.  She believes sugary drinks should be regulated similarly to alcohol.  “We regulate alcohol… We do not sell alcohol to children. We tax it and you can’t drink while you are working.”

Some fail in the dimension of responsibility and we all lose.  Little by little we pay more and we give up our freedom.

How Baby Powder Can Harm You?

Under the heading of Health, the Fox News headline read: “Research finds talc doesn't cause cancer; juries disagree.”  The AP story tells that two juries awarded a total of $127 million dollars to two women claiming that the Johnson & Johnson baby powder gave them ovarian cancer.  A second judge threw out two cases, saying there was no reliable evidence; but another 2000 women have already lined up to sue.

That’s the legal side.  What does science say?  “Most research finds no link or a weak one between ovarian cancer and using baby powder for feminine hygiene, a practice generations of American mothers have passed on to their daughters. Most major health groups have declared talc harmless.”  The rest of the article gives more information about the research and the trials.  Here is another conflict between science and the legal process, but that should come as no surprise in light of jury awards given years ago for silicon breast implants when the implants were later found to be safe.

It is very easy to understand how a jury could ignore science and award millions of dollars to a woman with ovarian cancer.  They do it out of sympathy, and they do it because they can.  To do otherwise seems cold and heartless.  It’s not their money and the company has plenty of money.  What’s a few million dollars in the grand scheme of things when it can bring comfort?

What person would stand by and see a toddler fall and skin her knee and not immediately run over to pick her up, dust her off and give her some comfort?  It is the human thing to do.

There are several similarities between the one who helps the fallen toddler and the juries who award large sums.  It costs them nothing.  It gives comfort to the afflicted, although it does nothing to cure the cancer or heal the skinned knee.  And it makes the rescuers feel good about the part they played in giving that comfort.

There are, however a few key differences.  When you comfort the toddler it truly costs you nothing, and other toddlers don’t look at the one who fell and line up to also fall down to get sympathy.  (Some may independently discover that falling down is an easy way to get attention and some of them probably grow up to be trial lawyers.)

Also, when a toddler gets sympathy, the costs of that sympathy are not spread to the rest of society.  When a jury finds for the plaintiff in this case, not only does the company (or insurance company) pay, but every other company in that industry is put on notice.  They are at risk of losing a large judgment for one of their products that has been on the market for years with no ill affects.  They don’t spend the money now, but must keep some in reserve to protect against such a contingency.

Likewise, all insurance companies, seeing that evidence means nothing to some juries, must save for similar outcomes.  The companies making personal products slowly raise their prices to adjust for this, and the insurance companies raise their rates to cover the increased risk.  This sympathetic redistribution, which is really what it is, ends up costing everyone in society.  What’s worse is that this activity adds no value.  It does not add to the GDP.  It does nothing to increase the standard of living for anyone except the few women who win in court (and their lawyers – Remember trial lawyers are not paid for justice; they are only paid for winning.)

In the end what can Johnson & Johnson do (besides spend a lot more time and money appealing each decision)?  What lesson could they learn?  Should they get everyone who buys baby powder to sign a hold-harmless agreement?  Why are they more at fault than the “generations of American mothers” referred to in the article?  They made a product considered safe for years and suddenly they are on the hook for $127 million; and if the ratios hold true and half the next 2000 win similar amounts, it could be $127 billion!  It’s “jackpot justice” and the cost of all the “lottery tickets” falls on the rest of us, including the people who served on those juries!

So how can baby powder harm you?  It harms you in the same way other wasteful legal actions harm you. It takes money out of deep pockets to compensate “victims,” but the costs ultimately come back to each of us, with nothing to show for it but richer lawyers and juries who, in some misguided way, temporarily feel satisfied that they did something to help.

Thinking About Soap

Apparently bar soap has developed a bad reputation.  Sales have fallen 5% over the last 5 years.  This CNN story from late last month tells us:  “Forty eight percent of consumers think bar soaps can be a haven for bacteria…Young consumers [18-24] believe this the most, with 60%” of them worried about germs on the soap.  To justify this silliness, many simply believe "Bar soap is for old people."

Silliness, indeed!  Think about it for a minute.  You come in from the garden, for instance, and wash your hands.  You have dirt and germs on your hands.  When you finish washing, are there germs left on the soap?  Yes.  Are there germs left on your hands and on the towel?  Yes, a few.  But having a few germs left behind, unless they are the really dangerous kind, is not dangerous and helps your immune system maintain vigilance against all the germs you are exposed to every day.

What about all those germs on the soap?  You come in again and wash your hands, which already have germs on them.  Both the germs from the garden and from the soap are washed down the drain again with very few left on your hands.

Some people say you should rinse the germs off the soap first.  Others say you should have a separate bar for each member of the family.  Well, the CDC, the people who watch out for our health, actually has instructions on hand washing.  The first steps are to wet your hands with clean, running water, turn off the tap, and apply soap, then lather your hands by rubbing them together with the soap.  No mention of the need to rinse germs off the soap or have a separate bar for each person.  Also, don’t you think you are exposed to family germs in many more ways than what’s left on the soap (and mostly washed down the drain)?

The science on the subject is clear.  In 1988 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published the results of research showing “little hazard exists in routine handwashing with previously used soap bars” and strongly endorsing “the frequent use of soap and water for handwashing to prevent the spread of disease.”

In 2007 The New York Times reiterated the advice in an article:  “Does sharing soap within the family spread germs?”  Their conclusion – “washing even with contaminated bar soap is unlikely to transfer bacteria.”

A 2015 NPR headline read:  “Your Soap Has Bacteria In It, But It Still Gets You Clean.”  And Huffington Posts explains: “Germs can and most likely do live on all bars of soap, but it’s very unlikely they will make you sick or cause a skin infection…If you are healthy, your body will have no problem fending off the germs.”

People, who want to ignore this advice, argue that we should use antibacterial soap to be really safe, but the FDA recently banned 19 ingredients from antibacterial soaps.  Here is a rather long excerpt from a CBS News story quoting an FDA press statement:  “Consumers may think antibacterial washes are more effective at preventing the spread of germs, but we have no scientific evidence that they are any better than plain soap and water.  In fact, some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long-term.”  Knowledge about the effects of certain chemicals that may be absorbed by the body from antibacterial products is lacking.

There are two additional concerns.  One is that the widespread use of antibacterial products can lead to further development of “super bugs,” similar to overuse of prescribed antibiotics.  Another concern is the effects of excessive cleanliness on the body's ability to build normal immunity to bacteria, especially for children.

So where does this baseless reaction to bar soap come from?  Germs are invisible and can be deadly.  That’s a scary combination.  Plus, who wants to be acting like old people when there is so much pressure to be cool and hip?   Add to that the constant and rapid spread of misinformation on social media, enhanced by the habit of not verifying, suspecting or even clearly thinking it through.  Throw in that many Americans don’t appreciate how lucky they are to have any kind of soap and running water, and you have a recipe for unreasonable behavior.  Today it’s soap, tomorrow something else.

Get a grip!  No one has the time or energy to worry about everything.  If the fear of germs on soap is a big enough worry to take action on, something is seriously out of proportion.