Flashback – Plastic Straws

I originally called this one "How Much We Take On Faith." At the time it was clear that many information sources are not reliable, a notion reconfirmed by many experiences since then. Politicians, advocates and pundits confidently make assertions to support their agendas. We can never tell what is true, what is pure fantasy, or how much is just so much hot air. 

 

Plastic straw mandates are examples of many symbolic acts. Using bad data or no data, authorities try to fool us, and probably themselves, into believing that they are really making a difference. They want to appear caring about all the right things, then garner enough support to pass laws and regulations forcing everyone to comply.

 

Here is the piece from 2018.

[The other day I got into a discussion with a colleague about plastic, which led to a comment about the amount of plastic in the ocean and what a problem it is. My response that only about 1% of the ocean plastic comes from the United States was met with stares of disbelief. Instead of arguing the point with someone who firmly believed the opposite, I offered to send references. The next day I emailed an explanation of the situation from a number of reputable sources.

From National Geographic in a story about the large accumulation of waste in the Pacific: "Microplastics make up 94 percent of an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic in the patch. But that only amounts to eight percent of the total tonnage. As it turns out, of the 79,000 metric tons of plastic in the patch, most of it is abandoned fishing gear—not plastic bottles or packaging drawing headlines today."

My next stop was a Bloomberg article with a sub headline of: “Skipping straws may be hip. But there are much better ways to fight pollution.” They first point out that the original estimate, the one activists and news media cite with confidence, that Americans use 500 million straws per day is based on highly dubious data that came from a small survey by a nine-year-old for a grade school science project. Then it was spread without any attempt to verify it by those who wanted to emphasize the problem. "Similarly, two Australian scientists estimate that there are up to 8.3 billion plastic straws scattered on global coastlines. Yet even if all those straws were suddenly washed into the sea, they'd account for about .03 percent of the 8 million metric tons of plastics estimated to enter the oceans in a given year.” So what we have been told about straws being the problem is a gross exaggeration.

A Science report on marine pollution verifies exactly what I was saying with a table on their site,  Table 1 titled: “Waste estimates for 2010 for the top 20 countries ranked by mass of mismanaged plastic waste (in units of millions of metric tons per year).” The US is listed at the bottom of the table with a contribution of .09% – less than one percent. That same information is repeated in pie charts on other sites.

So all this fuss about banning straws is bogus. It is a feel-good exercise that grows because so few people take the time to do the research. Ocean pollution is a problem, but the advocates and politicians are misinformed and are passing along that poor information to the rest of us – and we are buying it.

This and many other trends and movements have become their own religions. They depend on blind faith. The preachers stand up and confidently make ignorant and absurd allegations about chemicals, food safety, pollution, economics and a host of other subjects. The general population takes it on faith, chanting “amen” in all the right places. This leads to poor policies and results in those responsible for poor policies being reelected on the basis of making their followers feel good about themselves, about how pure they are, about how caring they are. It’s much more about ego and self esteem than science or actually saving the planet.

In reality these policies deliver little or no benefit and may have unknown side effects or unforeseen consequences. They are at best a waste of time. Critical thinking is the answer, but no one wants to deal with facts or reality.] Feeling good is more important.

Flashback – Baby Powder

Almost exactly four years ago I wrote about the difference between how the legal system looks at the danger of baby powder vs. how science sees it. Of course, that makes no difference, as just this week I saw another class action lawsuit ad on TV. When it comes to taking money from big rich companies and giving it to poor victims (and their lawyers) juries don’t care about science. They just want to use someone else’s money to dry the tears.

But they still expect the same company to continue to make the Tylenol for their headaches while testing and producing a COVID-19 vaccine. It’s all part of some weird love/hate relationship.

From September 2016: "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 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 themselves.

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 effects. 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 personal injury 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 winning “lottery tickets” is spread among 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.]

Understanding Experiments

When most people hear the word experiment, they picture a scientist in a lab coat with bubbling beakers and test tubes of mysterious liquids. This is not the real meaning. As a result of this misconception, news of the latest study is usually misleading.

An experiment is a rigorous process of testing an idea with the intention of either solving a problem or of improving a situation. Necessary first steps include defining the problem to be solved or determining how results will be measured. No one can claim improvement without measurements to compare (before and after). In the first case, the experiment is successful if the problem goes away. In the second, success is judged by the measurable amount of improvement.

When a well-designed experiment is successful, the implication is that the same solution can be applied widely to other situations: to solve the same problem elsewhere or to achieve the same amount of improvement. (Usually others replicate the experiment before findings are accepted.)

To achieve satisfactory results, any experiment must be well designed. Sloppy studies lead to problematic conclusions, ones that can’t be counted on to solve anything. Even the best experiments can yield bad information just based on the amount of diversity in the world and the fact that fluky things happen. 

Many experiments or studies the public is exposed to in the media relate to drugs or other remedies, and a strict procedure must be followed to ensure the conclusions are valid, otherwise the drugs or other remedies get on the market without proof that they are safe and effective.

In drug studies researchers try to choose a sufficiently large sample, because the larger the sample, the lower the chances of getting some oddball results just because you happened upon some atypical participants. A bigger sample tends to average out any unusual individual readings. 

The next step is to divide the sample into two parts that look as much alike as possible: same proportion by sex or race or education or income or background or location or any other feature that might affect the results. Sometimes this can only be done by random assignment to one group or the other. It's better if researchers have a good understanding of all the characteristics that might influence results and can make the two groups look as much alike as possible relative to those characteristics.

One group is treated – given the pill or the information or other treatment – the other, the control group, is given a fake pill (placebo) a sham treatment or left alone.

Afterward the groups are compared statistically to see if the change (hopefully an improvement) in the first group is significantly better than the change in the second. (Yes, there is often a change in the control group merely because the know they are participating in the experiment and believe the placebo is a real remedy.)

Ideally the people doing the testing are not aware of who is in which group (double-blind).

We know from the news that even these careful experiments can go wrong. Sometimes drugs are withdrawn from the market due to problems discovered only after they are released, released to a much larger sample size. That is why I have come down so hard and so often on vitamins and other dietary supplements where the law exempts them from the need for any research at all to prove safety and effectiveness. (They rely on endorsement, not proof, and use weasel words to imply effectiveness.)

Many times in the past I have also criticized experiments because they have been sloppy about their design. Sometimes they don’t define the problem until after the test is done and announce the findings with a press release. Sometimes the samples are too small due to budget constraints or laziness. Sometimes they rely on self-reporting so there is no real measurement. 

Finally businesses and educators like to say they are experimenting. In both cases it is rarely true. They don't set up two groups to compare. Then they measure by gut-feel.

Businesses are in too much of a hurry to do it right. They just try things, sometimes multiple things at the same time, so who knows which ones have a positive or negative or neutral influence on the final outcome.

In education they are still arguing about measurement. Teachers don’t want to be paid based on test scores, but haven't suggested a more acceptable criterion to measure their results. Yet school systems continue to try new methods and approaches without ever satisfying the first step – how to objectively measure real improvement.

Without understanding experiments, it’s too easy to be fooled by people who don’t know what they are doing and by people who do but are just trying to sell us a bill of goods. 

Diet Soda Still Under Attack

People using social media too often read headlines and don’t look at the rest of the story or, perish the thought, do a little research to find out the truth. We see articles posted where an event happened in another country but the comments read as if it happened right next door. (I highlighted an example of some of the dangers of this kind of behavior, blindly reposting stuff, earlier this month.)

That is why I wasn’t surprised to run across another condemnation of diet soda being spread on Facebook a few weeks ago when the original news story came out last February 14. (Does the American Heart Association (AHA) always release a story on Valentine’s Day or was that just a coincidence?) This story presented a good example of how a headline can be very misleading, and how 15 minutes of research leads to a different conclusion.

Multiple news outlets reported it, but the Fortune headline was typical: “Drinking Two or More Diet Sodas a Day Increases Likelihood of Strokes, Heart-Attacks, American Heart Association Says.” Although they have been seen as a healthier alternative to sugary drinks, the study shows that “immoderate drinking of the low-calorie drinks is associated with a greater risk of strokes or heart attacks.” 

They go on to say that over 82,000 women participated, which is a very large sample, but it means the findings can apply only to women. Furthermore, and not mentioned in the Fortune article, they were post-menopausal women between the ages of 50 and 79.

Part of the findings correctly reported was that the women “who drank two or more artificially sweetened drinks had a 23% higher risk of strokes in general.”

A more thorough report came from Science Daily. They also report the 23% figure, but add near the beginning of the piece an important reminder for non-statisticians. “While this study identifies an association between diet drinks and stroke, it does not prove cause and effect because it was an observational study based on self-reported information about diet drink consumption.” Also researchers can determine no mechanism by which the ingredients in diet drinks could cause the associated ailments.

A further question arises: How bad is a 23% increase in risk? That depends not on the size of the sample, but on the size of the risk. If, for example, the overall risk of something bad happening is 60%, a 23% increase brings the risk up to almost 75% - a big difference. On the other hand, if the risk is small, say 2% such an increase brings the risk to less than 2.5%. Without specifying the original size of the risk, the unanswered question is: how much behavior should I change to try to avoid it?

The percentage increase says nothing about the real size of the increased risk. To find out how serious it was I went to the AHA Journal article cited in those news stories. I found the data in Table 2 of the study.

The data showed that the risk of a stroke over the twelve years of follow up was about 3% for the group that drank almost no diet drinks and 3.7% for those who regularly drank two or more. Remember, this very small risk applies only to post-menopausal women. And also mentioned in the conclusion of the AHA study, those women in the higher-risk group “were more likely to be obese, had lower levels of exercise, had … lower diet quality… [and] were more likely to be a current smoker.”

A different study with a smaller sample asking the same question was published two years earlier by Harvard Health. It concluded that the risk from diet soft drinks is small. They also referred to a larger study that “detected a slightly higher risk of stroke in people who drank more than one soda per day, regardless of whether it contained sugar or an artificial sweetener.” (That flies in the face of the aspartame urban myth that won't seem to go away.) And agreeing with the conclusion in the AHA study, for people drinking diet sodas, “heightened stroke risk may result from their health problems rather than their beverage choice.”

An honest headline should have read: "Postmenopausal women who drink two or more diet drinks a day seem to have a slightly higher risk of strokes but what they drink might have nothing at all to do with it" - not exactly click-bait.

It takes just a little critical thinking and research to uncover the misrepresentations in so many headlines. If you don’t care enough about the issue to do the research, ignore the headlines. If you do, don’t repost them on social media until you've looked into the matter.

Flashback - A Real Climate Solution

[In November 2013 I posted this calm look at how nuclear power could be the key to reducing carbon emissions. Last month the powers-that-be met in Madrid to agonize over climate change and again nuclear didn't make the agenda. In fact some countries are cutting back on their nuclear programs to satisfy ill-informed public opinion. I was optimistic 6 years ago, but am less so today.]

The very idea of nuclear power gives people chills of terror. For many the words nuclear and radiation elicit an automatic reaction of panic, but be aware that it’s a feeling they may have to get over very soon.

Reasons behind the fear are many and varied. This NY Times article explains how a problem as far away as Japan can seem scarier to Americans than much less remote and more dangerous threats like smoking, radon, auto accidents or natural disasters. Radiation is difficult to understand, complex and potentially deadly. It’s not only associated with bombs and war but it’s also invisible – so you can’t see it coming. Radiation is uncontrollable – how do you turn it off? – and unfamiliar, unlike burning wood or coal or turning a generator with wind or water. Finally, nuclear energy and radiation have had terrible PR. People are influenced by movies and science fiction stories to the point that in a recent survey on perceived risks for 30 activities and technologies, “students and women's group rated nuclear power No. 1. The experts ranked it No. 20.”

Since the UN came out just days ago with a report that the atmospheric CO₂ level has reached a record, even higher than expected, this automatic negative reaction will soon meet head on with a great deal of pro-nuclear effort as they look for alternatives to coal generation of electricity.

Popular alternatives, wind and solar, have serious drawbacks. They have a large geographic footprint, an ecological concern, while people who generally favor the idea, oppose it being set up next door. Renewable sources vary, only available when there is sunlight or sufficient wind. Variability creates more problems than normally expected. Not only do they require another reliable source to fill the gaps, but that source must also be very flexible. This Economist article tells how the wholesale price of electricity in Germany actually went negative one bright and windy day in June, because of the unusually high supply, which also threatened to overload the grid due to the inability to quickly and efficiently flex their coal, gas and nuclear plants. In places where utilities are required to buy the solar- and wind-generated electricity first, the variability is built into the system, utilities are losing value and profits, so the money for future investments in the delivery systems, the wires to your house, is drying up.

Given those circumstances and despite real drawbacks, like cost, spent fuel disposal and one recent atypical disaster, nuclear is beginning to look more and more attractive as a non-polluting alternative. James Hansen, a former NASA official, and one of the early voices warning of climate change, has recently endorsed it and asked key environmentalists to use their influence in favor of more nuclear plants. Others argue that, despite scary news reports, nuclear power has a very good safety record and has caused less than a dozen deaths from radiation over its entire history. They estimate that 1.8 million pollution-related deaths have been prevented by the current use of nuclear power. They minimize the threat of terrorism and argue that 21^st century technology is far superior to that used in any operating plant in the US. (Many of the latest navy ships are nuclear powered.)

Any decisions like this will have a political component. The push in favor is building, but advocates with the opposite agenda will be working hard to influence public opinion. Times like this call for strong critical thinking. Oppose nuclear power, if you are so inclined, based on facts from reliable sources and not on emotion, gut reaction or pseudo-scientific warnings. It’s critical that we get it right.

What’s All the Fuss about CBD?

As I was walking through the local mall, I had to steer around a large sign in front of the GNC store. It read: “CBD Products Available.” It did nothing to raise my opinion of GNC, which I consider to be the epitome of junk science, but I thought I should do some research to make sure my eye rolling was justified.

Cannabidiol (CBD) oil is an extract from industrial-grade hemp or the marijuana plant. It does not have the effect of getting the user “high” as the THC in marijuana does. It recently surged onto the market with a wide variety of health claims. What are the facts?

There is so much information, but it has to be sorted careful, as much of it is pure advertising, telling the stories of miracle cures. Many promises are unreliable to the point that in September the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered three companies to stop making claims that they: relieve pain better than opioid painkillers and that they treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), fibromyalgia, cigarette addiction, colitis, autism, anorexia, bipolar disorder, PTSD, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS), stroke, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, traumatic brain injuries, diabetes, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and AIDS – while using the words miracle and magic to describe the effects. The following month both the FTC and FDA warned a Florida company marketing CBD products about making similar unsubstantiated claims. (These were only the ones that were caught.)

Stepping aside from the hype, Science News published a story earlier this year that is a little more down to earth. “A gaping chasm separates the surging CBD market and the scientific evidence backing it. While there are reasons to be excited about CBD, the science just isn’t there yet.” Trials are underway, but “much of the existing research was done with cells in the lab or in lab animals, with results that don’t necessarily translate to people.”

The next stop was a WebMD article, “CBD Oil: All the Rage, But Is It Safe & Effective?” They remind readers, “experts say the evidence is scant for most of these touted benefits” and it is being sold as a supplement, “produced without any regulation, resulting in products that vary widely in quality.” So far “only one purported use for cannabidiol, to treat epilepsy, has significant scientific evidence supporting it.”

CBS recognized the quality problem in this piece from about three months ago with the warning that “without wide federal oversight, there is no way of really knowing what's inside CBD [products].” They commissioned lab tests of samples from all over the country and found no harmful chemicals but significant differences between the amount of CBD on the label and actual contents making proper dosage a big problem. In addition, “cannabinoids do interact with prescription drugs. But because we lack reliable controlled trials, we don't have enough detail to understand all the interactions.”

The same viewpoint comes from Harvard Medical School. “Without sufficient high-quality evidence in human studies we can’t pinpoint effective doses, and because CBD is currently mostly available as an unregulated supplement, it’s difficult to know exactly what you are getting.” The JAMA network notes that in studies to date "evidence of effectiveness was scarce," and that a California testing company found 85% of samples inaccurately labelled.

This Slate article makes the point clearly. As more and more products, from foods and beverages to creams and lotions, have CBD added “CBD is in everything, but it hasn’t been proven to do much of anything." Despite this, it is forecast to become a $22 billion industry by 2024.

In summary, with no scientific evidence of health benefits outside of the treatment of epilepsy, CBD oil has become all the rage with companies adding it to all sorts of products and selling it as a miracle cure. Some companies have crossed the legal line with their claims, but those that are more careful can easily imply that it’s curative powers are enormous without coming right out and saying it. Instead they rely on endorsements from beneficiaries of the placebo effect, as do many of the other supplements on the market. (In other words, my eye rolling was justified.)

Climate Change and Real Science

I’ve written recently how promoters of the man-made climate change concern tend to dismiss those who want to continue the debate as being unscientific and deniers. But some of the real impediments to dealing with greenhouse gases don’t come from a lack of science. The solutions are based in science but find stumbling blocks in popular trends and fear mongering.

Two or three current articles lead to this conclusion. 

The latest idea to come out of the UN to reduce our carbon footprint is to eat less meat. If everyone adopted a vegan lifestyle, putting all the cows, pigs, chickens and sheep out of work, they claim we could effect a significant change. But this Reason Magazine article crunches the numbers and the results are disappointing. “In their 2017 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, agronomists Robin White and Mary Beth Hall reached a similar conclusion [to several others], calculating that the total elimination of animal husbandry would reduce U.S. emissions by 2.6 percent.” 

In other words, nagging the public to reduce or even completely stop eating meat pursues a negligible effect on climate change. Of course, the facts should not stand in the way of the popular feel-good trend, where the burger giants are playing to the crowd by offering Impossible Whoppers and McVegans. A big pain yields little gain.

On another front, strong arguments in favor of nuclear power as a means of producing electricity without releasing carbon dioxide into the air fall on deaf ears. Increasing the number of nuclear reactors would be the ideal solution to climate change. In addition to the lack of pollution, they have a much smaller physical footprint than other sources such as wind and solar. 

But say the word nuclear and people panic. They start talking about Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island as if they were typical rather than extreme outliers. “These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 17,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries.” The World Nuclear Association summarizes the safety by saying, “The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided.”

To counter these facts the uniformed cite the problem of nuclear waste. The truth is that “all the used fuel ever produced by the commercial nuclear industry since the late 1950s would cover a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards.” That’s one single football field for the entire world. Furthermore, much of it can be processed for reuse as they do in France and “after 7,000 shipments total of used fuel by the worldwide nuclear industry since 1970, there have been no leaks of radioactive material or personal injuries.”

The biggest truth is that people refuse to consider it as an alternative due to unfounded fear. In Germany the anti-nuclear movement kicked into high gear with mass protests after Fukushima promoting a phase out of nuclear energy by 2022 while still moving off fossil fuel-based energy generation. Should America follow this wanting-my-cake-and-eating-it too philosophy?

The final piece came from an interview published at foreignpolicy.com featuring research to growing better vegetation. 

Plants naturally draw CO₂ from the atmosphere. “Every year, humanity emits 37 gigatons of carbon dioxide; photosynthetic life can process and capture nearly half of that amount.” The theory is that plants can be made a little more productive. Since the amount of carbon dioxide released naturally is so much greater, plants operating at only a 2% or 3% increase in efficiency could pick up the other half of human emissions.

One problem is that the effort to “come up with a cost-effective and efficient way of actually pulling carbon dioxide down from the atmosphere and sequestering it down into the soil—where it should be” requires genetic engineering to create this “Ideal Plant.” If breeding could do it, it would take much longer. Many people and governments would have to overcome their irrational fear of GMOs, but that should be much easier than the alternative, the standard of living hardships that would result from severe reductions in energy availability.

The answers to fighting climate change likely come from real science, not a pick and choose kind of science that follows the fear mongering and fashions of the day.

So Much Filler

With so much time dedicated to news, the media faces the choice of either saying the same thing over and over until people get sick of hearing it and it loses its edge, or trying to come up with enough extra items to fill the time available. The trend has been to accuse “cable news” of this use of filler (and other things, like using unverified sources), but it's found on the networks as well.

The practice of using filler goes beyond the cute animal pictures from the Internet and the feel-good, human-interest stories at the end of evening newscasts. This explains why every time I hear a newscaster start with the words, “A new study shows,” I tend to roll my eyes and tune it out. It is there to fill airtime and is either incomplete, inconclusive or both, featuring words like linked to and may cause and leads to or simply a rehash of common knowledge – often both.

A prime example turned up last week. It appeared not only on network news, but on CNN and Time.com. Napping is good for you.

 “In a new paper published in the journal Heart, researchers found that Swiss adults who took one or two daytime naps per week had a lower risk of heart problems, including heart disease and strokes, than non-nappers.” They followed about 3500 people between the ages of 35 and 75 for eight years, dividing them into four groups based on self-reporting: no naps, 1-2 times per week, 3-5 naps per week and about daily. 

They drew the conclusion by sorting that data by the 155 people in the study who developed heart problems. (Except their conclusion did not apply to people over 65.) Time also reports: “The study was limited by its observational design—which allows researchers to find only patterns, not cause and effect.” There, late in the article come the disclaimers. 

CNN's piece was a little more forthright at the beginning with the headline: "Daytime naps once or twice a week may be linked to a healthy heart.” Their expert doesn’t think changing habits to conform to the study findings will improve heart health. It may be more about overall choices behind those sleep habits. It is “far better to aim for regular good night's sleep and to follow usual lifestyle advice of good diets and decent activity levels.”

The whole story is very heavy on may be linked and no definite cause and effect, concluding with common advice on healthy lifestyles.

One wonders why it even considered newsworthy when the study itself gives the same vague information: “Nap frequency may help explain the discrepant findings [in other studies] regarding the association between napping and [cardiovascular disease] events." [Emphasis added.]

The researchers acknowledged limitations: reliance on self-reporting, the small number of subjects with CVD events (155) – especially in the 1-2 naps per week group, the possibility of underestimating morning napping due to the questionnaire’s wording and the possibility of residual confounding, which means that other factors not included in the study could have affected the results. Therefore, “these results should be interpreted with caution,” and generalizing conclusions beyond the Swiss population “is not guaranteed.” 

Looking into the details confirmed my suspicions. This study may have been of interest to other research groups working on napping-related questions, but it was very limited and of no value at all to the American public. Why then did 76 news outlets pick up the story with some providing more thorough and accurate information than others? – Filler!

Walk Faster, Live Longer?

A very interesting article in JAMA a number of years ago requires the application of critical thinking to avoid making a misinterpretation.

 A team of scientists put together a summary of nine studies over the years totaling almost 35,000 subjects over the age of 65, residents of various nursing facilities . Each study was trying to find out whether measuring a person’s walking speed could help predict how much longer they would live.

The data came from the various researchers measuring how fast people walked over a short measured course, between 8 and 20 feet long, using a stopwatch and converting the speed to feet or meters per second. They then followed up years later to see how well the measured speed at the time of the test correlated with how much longer the individuals lived. (The authors refer to it as “gait speed.”)

The published conclusion, when they put the information from all the studies together: “In this pooled analysis of individual data from 9 selected cohorts, gait speed was associated with survival in older adults.” The graphs accompanying the article show this quite clearly, and the findings held true for both men and women and for people of different races. The top group walked the course at 1.6 meters per second, which converts to about 3.6 miles per hour. (For a longer distance this would mean a pace at which someone could walk a mile in about 17 minutes.)

How is this useful? “First, gait speed might help identify older adults with a high probability of living for 5 or 10 more years, who may be appropriate targets for preventive interventions that require years for benefit.” It could help assess whether a particular medical procedure would be worth the risk – there is always a risk, especially for older people. “Second, gait speed might be used to identify older adults with increased risk of early mortality, perhaps those with gait speeds slower than 0.6 m/s.” It is a simple and informative way for “assessing expected survival to contribute to tailoring goals of care in older adults.” Furthermore, it is a simple measurement that can be easily done in a nursing home corridor by non-professionals.

How is this not useful? Correlation is not causation. Someone seeing this article and not using critical thinking might conclude that beginning to walk faster was a way to guarantee longer life. After all, the graphs on the page clearly show that those who walked faster lived longer. Except for the fact that exercise is good for anyone, this conclusion is not necessarily so; it’s not what the analysis shows.

The authors theorize that the correlation exists because, walking “requires energy, movement control, and support and places demands on multiple organ systems, including the heart, lungs, circulatory, nervous, and musculoskeletal systems.” A slower walking speed could indicate some damage or a larger than normal energy requirement for other reasons. Both could be a general indicator of lessened vitality. It makes sense that those who were going to live longer were just capable of walking faster, and did so.

Unfortunately, scientists did not prove that increasing our walking speed will increase our life expectancy. (In fact, people walking faster while texting could easily decrease their life expectancies.) Getting more exercise, including walking, and generally taking care of ourselves will. There is rarely one easy answer. The real secret to good health appeared in this space over five years ago and, unfortunately requires some degree of discipline.

Read Science and Heath News Carefully

My usual approach is to look for several examples that on first glance don’t seem to fit together and show how they all demonstrate weak behavior in some aspect of one of the dimensions. Rarely do I use a single source, but today is an exception.

This article has been circulating on social media as if it were some bold new scientific revelation. In fact, the Bona-Fide News Network site features only the headline and links directly to the article with twelve options for sharing the headline. The headline in question: “Prescription: More Broccoli, Fewer Carbs. How Some Doctors Are Looking To Food To Treat Illness,” appears on the WBUR page.

In summary, it tells of “a growing trend” among doctors to prescribe certain food choices to improve their patient’s health. But in medicine, I’d rather look at evidence than trends, so I will draw heavily from the article to highlight some of its weaknesses. (All emphasis in bold font has been added by me.)

After a story of one success where a patient improves his mental health after changing his diet, the article presents the research. Three recent studies “conclude that a molecule in vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, brussel [sic] sprouts and kale really may fight cancer. It seems to help reactivate a gene that suppresses many tumors.” In another study, women “who ate a relatively low-fat diet — rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains — had a lower risk of getting and dying from breast cancer. And in a third, tiny study, [a similar diet] seemed to improve metabolism, boosting levels of proteins that play a role in maintaining cell health and the body’s response to insulin.”

It then makes a huge leap of faith, presenting the opinion of a Dean at Tufts University, “Our food system…is absolutely the number one cause of poor health in our country.” The psychiatrist involved in the first story “thinks that the same switch in energy source [from a different diet] may help combat mental illness” and later “thinks … a strict ketogenic diet … does a better job” than some traditional cures, and “very early evidence suggests” it is effective in treating mental illness.

“In a different study at Northeastern University, researchers are using big data to better understand how individual nutrients affect the body and brain.” But this study is in its infancy and has reached no conclusions.

“Although nutritionists still quibble about the details,” they recommend “vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts and some whole grains” and discourage "processed meats and other processed foods, white bread, chips and soda.” Well, that’s hardly a revelation!

The piece then circles back to conclude with the original human-interest story.

What do we learn for sure from such news? What we eat is important. Older women who reduce fat in their diet raise the odds of avoiding breast cancer. Several experts think it is true and early evidence seems to indicate that certain foods may have specific benefits, but confirmation of those benefits is a long way off. Until then we have doctors following trends and news media forced to hype this kind of vague information to meet an obligation to fill the airways 24/7.

The real lesson is that no one else will review the content critically before it gets to you. Headlines are advertising for the articles. The vague details and weasel words come later.

How Sweet It Is!

A couple of things came together over the last few weeks that brought up some interesting questions. The first was this video from John Stossel using the sugar industry as an example of crony capitalism or corporate welfare. The second was the bold print on the side of a bread package announcing that the product contained no high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

Most of the Stossel video, “Sugar’s Sweetheart Deal,” is about how the industry advertises that they are not subsidized, but government bailouts (using our tax dollars) when the price falls, keep them rich and happy. The government also helps keep the price up with artificial quotas on domestic production and imports. So much of our food costs more, because sugar costs more, and it’s in so many products. 

When I looked at the ingredients on that bread package, the one proudly proclaiming that it contained no HFCS, I was not surprised to see sugar near the top of the list. Perhaps the sugar industry also is behind the bad reputation that most people associate with the cheaper substitute. Is there something behind the halo-effect of “No High Fructose Corn Syrup” or is this another case of hype?

This source gave me a clue: “There isn't enough evidence to say that HFCS is less safe to eat than table sugar, according to the American Medical Association, which has stated that HFSC does not appear to be more harmful than other caloric sweeteners.”

The HealthLine site goes into more detail. “There are only tiny differences between HFCS 55. – the most common type of high-fructose corn syrup – and regular sugar. A major difference is that high-fructose corn syrup is liquid – containing 24% water – whereas table sugar is dry and granulated.” The differences in chemical structure between the fructose and glucose in HFCS and the sucrose in sugar is not significant and “do not affect nutritional value or health properties.” After they are broken down in the digestive system, they end up looking exactly the same.

In a discussion of recipes on howstuffworks.com, they point out that there is a small difference. The HFCS has slightly higher levels of fructose, but the difference is very small and not particularly relevant from a health perspective.

So the package posting no HFCS is not really a reassurance; it only means they used sugar instead. It’s just another advertising trick. Both are about the same thing, neither is particularly good for us, and both should be consumed in moderation.

But what of the packages that say “no sugar” or “sugar-free.” Therein lies another can of worms. Most of the time those products don’t contain HFCS either; they contain artificial sweeteners. But wait! Aren’t artificial sweeteners a kind of slow-acting poison? Some will tell you exactly that.

It turned into another research project. This time I went to Mayo Clinic's site. “Artificial sweeteners are synthetic sugar substitutes. But they may be derived from naturally occurring substances, such as herbs or sugar itself.” They can be “attractive alternatives to sugar” because they contain virtually no calories and do not contribute to dental problems. Artificial sweeteners may also help with weight control and diabetes.

They go on to say: “Artificial sweeteners have been scrutinized intensely for decades.”  Studies from the 1970s “that linked the artificial sweetener saccharin to bladder cancer in laboratory rats” led critics to claim that they are unhealthy and carcinogenic. “But according to the National Cancer Institute and other health agencies, there's no sound scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the United States cause cancer or other serious health problems. Numerous studies confirm that artificial sweeteners are generally safe in limited quantities, even for pregnant women.” 

The sole choices left are the so-called natural sweeteners, such as honey, maple syrup, and molasses. These are popular among the health-conscious crowd, some even calling honey a miracle food. Back to Mayo for this information: "Natural sugar substitutes may seem healthier than sugar. But their vitamin and mineral content isn't significantly different. For example, honey and sugar are nutritionally similar, and your body processes both into glucose and fructose.”

Will all that information change minds? Probably not! Will “No High Fructose Corn Syrup” continue to sell, while people continue to warn their neighbors about the dangers of artificial sweeteners? Most likely! Will foodies be attracted to honey in recipes thinking it contains some health secret? That, too! Critical thinking and simple, solid research where are you?

Abandoning Critical Thinking

We are faced every day with friends and neighbors who seem to be able to stare logic straight in the face and still make the wrong decision. This can easily be misinterpreted as stupid behavior, except we know that many of these people did well in school. Some even have advanced degrees. How else can we explain this apparent abandonment of critical thinking?

My theory is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, opinion polls and the apparent direction of popular trends, America is still a very religious country and is getting more religious with each passing day. The difference is that I am not talking about standard, organized religions. The new religions involve pseudoscience and are promoted by personal interactions, especially on social media, and by celebrity endorsements, rather than by priests, ministers, rabbis and imams. 

Consider how a traditionally religious person reacts when his faith is challenged. Show someone an obvious contradiction in the Bible or the Koran – and there are many to choose from – and such a person will argue for a while, but eventually fall back on the argument that it's a mystery only God can explain or that it is a matter of faith not subject to logical analysis. End of conversation! No one has changed his mind. He may even feel vindicated because his faith was challenged but endured.

Now have a similar conversation with someone convinced that communication with the dead is not only possible, but that it happens frequently on daytime TV and in private homes where mediums hold séances. No matter how much logical information such a person receives, a change of mind is a rare occurrence. A more likely response is the same quasi-religious reaction, resistance to logic and reliance on a strong belief in the spiritual realm.

But this new-age religious experience is not limited to the customers of séances and tarot card readings. With the help not only of charlatans, but also of marketing departments, industry institutes, lobbyists, interest groups, fund-raising organizations and individual crusaders, it spreads through the entire country creeping into every corner of our lives. It is so much easier to sell to people on the basis of faith than on the basis of logic. So all these forces work in concert to gain converts to particular products, services and ideas. The emotional argument draws them in; then the feeling of embarrassment or of betrayal of one's beliefs, keeps them coming back.

Consider the religious fervor displayed by backers of ideas like: harm from vaccination, danger of GMOs, danger of fluoridated tap water, superiority of bottled water, benefits of a gluten-free diet (except for medical necessity), power of alternative medicines, danger of anything artificial or chemical, dietary supplements, radiation from power lines, food irradiation, sea salt, therapeutic touch or Reiki, refusal to consider nuclear power as a clean electricity source, super foods, unquestioned halo-effect of words like green, natural, sustainable and ancient wisdom, essential oils, and the list goes on and on.

Yes, we are truly a religious nation. The religions of junk science, fads, hype and misinformation are thriving, converting new believers every day!

Those Sore Muscles

Last time I discussed a book I hadn’t read, but based on a couple of reviews, I found some positive things to say about the advice it gave about taking responsibility. (I also threw in some snarky comment about the title.)

This time I want to discuss a book that I actually did read. Published quite recently, it’s called Good To Go, by Christie Ashwaunden. The subtitle is: What the athlete in all of us can learn from the strange science of recovery. It covers a variety of tools and techniques for physical recovery after participating in a sporting event or hard practice session. Examples are taken from professional athletes, Olympic-level competitors and serious sports enthusiasts. The book is an investigation of what works, what has real scientific backing vs. what is based on marketing, hype, and urban myth. It contains many surprises, but reinforces the need for critical thinking, the need to challenge our deeply held beliefs in everything we do.

The introduction states the problem clearly. “The explosion of recovery products and services can seem ridiculous.” Although “everyone intuitively knows what recovery is and how to achieve it,” the industry has found a way to make it much more complicated, expensive and time-consuming than it needs to be or ever has been.

Promoters of these new methods usually use stories rather than scientific facts, and stories told by celebrities or sports stars are most effective. The advertised science behind them is often based on poorly constructed studies with very small sample sizes. Only the ones with positive results see the light of day with the rest (often the majority) filed away. The book investigates many of these products and services to see what really works. I will cover just a few.

One such product with little scientific justification is the sports drink phenomenon, a huge industry with many devoted fans. One expert characterized some of their studies as verging on “comical.” The author takes on the whole idea of hydration, pre-hydration and electrolyte supplements and comes to the conclusion that the best defense against dehydration is to drink when you are thirsty. Any other approach can result in waste or even harm. 

She gives the example of running with her dog. When they get home, she gives her access to a water bowl. The dog decides whether or not to drink. The author has “never needed to inspect the color of the dog’s urine or give her an emergency IV for low fluid levels.” We make it overly complicated, yet hydrate is common advice from all sides every summer.

Similar advice goes for sports nutrition. She gives the example of Usain Bolt, the fastest man in the world, filling up on chicken nuggets during the Olympics. They may not have been the most nutritious meals, but “when your muscles are hungry for fuel, they don’t care where the energy comes from.... What should I eat after exercising? The easiest answer is: whatever your body is hungry for.” 

She also discusses the promotion of such ideas as infrared saunas, explaining that heat is heat, and any magical powers attributed to infrared, such as reducing inflammation, boosting growth hormones, clearing toxins or boosting the immune system are unsupported and have received negative attention from the FDA. Yet marketers and pro athletes push overpriced infrared saunas, cold lasers, massage beds and pajamas, based on the “sciency” sound of it all.

Subsequent chapters talk about sleep and supplements. Sleep is vital for recovery. Keep it uncomplicated; our body helps us figure out how much is enough. I have addressed the problems with supplements many times in the past. (See here and here). They are unregulated, can be dangerous and are poorly researched. They have a reverse approval process compared to prescription drugs. No one has to prove they are safe and effective. The FDA only gets involved when they prove to be harmful, as in the case of ephedra, where a hundred people died taking it to increase energy. “Yet it took the FDA ten years to ban it.”

There is much more to learn from this book. But I found it an excellent example of applied critical thinking with a host of interesting surprises.

Short Subjects

Gluten-free dog food: There are a couple of bad reasons for buying gluten-free dog food and only one good one. But first a little background.

“Gluten is the term for proteins found in wheat, rye, barley and oats. It has glue-like properties, allowing food to stay together. Celiac disease occurs in people with a genetic predisposition and results in damage to the small intestine because of gluten sensitivity. It makes digestion difficult for the affected population.”

The first bad reason is the same one explaining why people buy gluten-free food for themselves. The same website that supplied that explanation above goes on to say, “If you purchase a grain-free dog food, that generally means it’s also gluten-free. A manufacturer might label a grain-free food as also being gluten-free, but that’s marketing for the uninformed.” The only reason they would do that is to sell more product by driving an imaginary competitive advantage. (It might allow them to charge more, too.)

The second bad reason is to assume a gluten-free diet would benefit the pet. “Most dogs do not suffer from celiac disease, so a gluten-free diet is not necessary.” The sole exception is Irish setters that may have inherited a gluten intolerance, but this includes just a few Irish setters. 

The only good reason would be if a dog had celiac disease, confirmed by a vet with blood tests and a biopsy of the intestine. This would be a rare situation even if Irish setters were very common. To make sure I checked for the 10 most popular dog breeds according to the American Kennel Club. Irish setters didn’t make the list.

Then why do we see so many ads and associated material for gluten-free dog food? – The same reason we see gluten-free posted on so much people food – “marketing for the uninformed.”

Workplace Wellness Programs: These became all the rage over the past decade or so, especially within large companies. This website echoes the universal sentiment:

“Considering the improvement to the well-being and productivity of a healthy workplace, and the amount of time we spend at our workplaces, it makes sense to foster workplace wellness programs. Not only does it affect the output of team members, but it makes them feel good in all areas of life—including work.”

Having a suite of such programs makes an employer appear to be progressive and caring while making a wise investment. “One of the signs of a top-notch employer will be a workplace wellness program.”

Top-notch or not, a program that doesn’t work is not a good use of time and money, and according to this NPR health report, that might be the case. Workplace wellness programs, now an $8 billion industry, have received conflicting marks over the years from various studies, but none have been carefully designed enough to rely on – until now. 

Researchers from the University of Chicago and Harvard conducted the first large-scale, peer-reviewed study with a randomized controlled trial design. “They published their findings [last] Tuesday in the medical journal JAMA.” Details of the study can be found by following the link.

In the end, participants self-reported healthier behavior than those not enrolled, such as exercising more or managing their weight better. “But the efforts did not result in differences in health measures, such as improved blood sugar or glucose levels, how much employers spent on health care or how often employees missed work. Their job performance and how long they stuck around in their jobs also seemed unaffected, the researchers say.”

Since a benefit given is nearly impossible to take back, the large number of companies that have them will be forced to assume some hidden return on investment, but the latest scientific data does not really back that up.

Death Threats: Now that the Internet allows people to make death threats without leaving the comfort of their homes or even on the go from their phones, there seem to be more of them – and for more and more trivial reasons. Just last week an Atlanta meteorologist received death threats and other “inappropriate messages” for interrupting the Masters golf tournament to update viewers on tornado watches in the area. Of course a watch is not as serious as a warning, but it’s far more serious than watching golf on TV – except to some who accused the meteorologist of being pretentious and wasting their time. Perspective, anyone?

GMO Myths Persist

Despite the strong scientific, economic and humanitarian arguments in their favor, some individuals and organizations continue to spread a fear of genetically modified foods. Look up “GMO Warnings” to get a list of websites spreading the gospel.

This one is representative, promoting a book by an anti-GMO author. “In a study in the early 1990's rats were [force-]fed genetically modified (GM) tomatoes…. Several of the rats developed stomach lesions and seven out of forty died within two weeks.” At the time “agency scientists warned that GM foods in general might create unpredicted allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems” (emphasis in the original).

What they fail to mention is that GMO tomatoes were never available to market. A little more than two years ago the Hunt Company was scorned for their “No GMOs in sight” marketing campaign. Hundreds of “consumers, farmers and scientists criticizing the company for fear mongering and pandering to ‘the superstitions of misinformed extremists.’” That Forbes article goes on to explain that all the food we eat is technically genetically modified from their ancestors, either by nature, by human selection, by crossbreeding or by genetic engineering. All such modification is capable of producing favorable or unfavorable, even dangerous characteristics. But we can’t be afraid of all food!

The economic and humanitarian arguments go hand in hand to some extent. As the population of the earth continues to increase, the need for food increases. The amount of land available to raise that food is not increasing. In fact more will be used for other activities like homes and highways for that growing population. For the past hundred years, the ability to keep up with population growth has come not by throwing more resources at it, but by using science and technology. GMO is just another option.

The latest effort comes from the University of Illinois as shown in this headline: “Scientists engineer shortcut for photosynthetic glitch, boost crop growth by 40 percent.” By making the photosynthetic process in plants, their ability to convert sunlight to energy, more efficient, the principal investigator believes, "We could feed up to 200 million additional people with the calories lost to photorespiration in the Midwestern U.S. each year."

But the people promoting their books, their websites and their products don’t seem to care about those 200 million going hungry. They are more than willing to promote and prey upon the fear of science among people who are not starving and who can be easily convinced to be unnecessarily fussy and fearful about food. It’s been going on for some time and has become even more intense using the speed and reach of the Internet along with the growing appetite for movements motivated to save ignorant neighbors by forcing change.

A second economic argument is that some of our favorite foods may be disappearing too rapidly to be saved by any means less efficient than genetic engineering. I wrote in March 2017 about the problems orange growers face with citrus greening.

There is also a concern about bananas. This article explains that the bananas we buy in the store are sterile and produced via cloning. They lack the genetic variation needed to develop immunity to pests or diseases. 

The need is clear; the science is clear. Without constant improvement in farming technology, the world will not be able to support current levels of population growth. Without genetic engineering people will starve. About 90% or more of cotton, corn, soybeans, and sugar beets are currently genetically modified. People die from food contamination, not from genetic engineering. 

 Meanwhile, entities like the Institute for Responsible Technology and several others seem to have teamed up with the marketing departments of major food companies to sustain the fear and to use that fear to sell us products under the false, unfounded and misguided assumption that we are doing what’s healthier and what’s right for our families.