Flashback - Unbelievable Numbers?

[Almost a year ago I wrote about the statistics that politicians, pundits and experts spread without any support. They are repeated to the point where everyone accepts them as gospel, and no one bothers to check. It happens often. These are just a few that I highlighted at the time.]

Politicians and other entities trying to raise awareness to one or another kind of problem or injustice love to toss out surprising numbers to gain support for their cause. In many cases these are not real numbers. They could be based on data collected by the program itself with no effort to be unbiased, in fact, the more shocking the better. They may have been based on a single survey that made no effort to confirm results, and may directly conflict with the results of similar surveys. Like the unverified number of discarded plastic straws that was really based on a small survey for a grade-school project that led to such an uproar, the numbers are often repeated so many times by so many people that everyone assumes they are correct. 

With so many examples, how can we tell what to believe?

Everyone knows that ten thousand steps per day is the recommended amount to stay healthy and to boost longevity – or do they? This NPR piece tells us “the idea of walking at least 10,000 steps a day for health goes back decades to a marketing campaign launched in Japan to promote a pedometer” and is not some kind of magic number. In a recent study published in JAMA, older women who averaged 4,400 steps per day were better off than those taking only 2,700, with little or no benefit over about 7,500 steps. This finding was confirmed elsewhere.

The myth of 10,000 daily steps is akin to 8 glasses of water daily. There is no basis. Someone made it up. The best advice, to drink when you are thirsty, continues to be drowned out by the “hydration parrots” who swear by 64 ounces.

Other examples include the unacceptably high number of school shootings. The Campus Safety Magazine puts the number for 2018 at 82, “the highest there have ever been since 1970.” They mention that the second highest was 59 in 2006, so it can hardly be called a trend, perhaps more of a blip. They then state that the majority didn’t happen on school property – indicating a rather loose definition of school shooting. Compare that to the Wikipedia list of each occurrence by location with a total of only 36 for the same year.

A Time article calls into question the widely circulated number of one in five women in the US having been raped. They call that number misleading noting “the striking disparity between CDC figures and the Justice Department’s crime statistics based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (which includes crimes unreported to the police).” This article provides much detail and there is room for doubt (as I pointed out earlier), yet we continue to hear the same number.

Of course everyone also knows that crime and teen pregnancy are worse than ever – not so fast! “Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century.” Here is a link to that Pew survey from earlier this year showing several graphs on violent and property crimes all heading in the right direction, although you’d never know it from the news coverage. That explains why the public perception is the opposite. Likewise a site called the Seeker reports, “the fact is that teen pregnancy is low and has been dropping.”

Can the recent increase in tornados be attributed to Climate Change? This article from a Carbon Brief posting calls it highly uncertain – with references to the data. “What is clear is that there is no observable increase in the number of strong tornadoes in the US over the past few decades,” adding: “Any role for climate change in affecting the conditions for tornado formation is still very much an open question and the subject of ongoing research by the scientific community.”

Finally, are there more black men in prison in the US than in colleges and universities? It’s a handy throwaway line for a speech emphasizing victimhood, but I picked that one apart very nicely about 5 years ago.

We can’t rely on the orators, advocates, media and advertisers to get it right. Use critical thinking. Question everything.

Flashback - Bottle Your Own Water

[It was about five years ago that I first posted this about bottled water. By now everyone has at least one water bottle at home and, with a few very rare exceptions, clean running water. Of course, it's those few rare exceptions that make the news and get people all excited. But then, as now, I am interested in promoting behavior.]

It distresses me every time I see someone pushing a cart full of bottled water around the grocery store.  I always wonder what they are thinking. Don’t they understand that it’s much cheaper and just as healthy and convenient to buy a bottle once and fill it with tap water every day? While there is so much publicity about Americans who are food insecure, others still choose to spend grocery money this way.

I recently ran across this excellent posting with a good explanation for those who are not current with the science and will not choose to reject it out of hand because it doesn’t agree with their preconceived position. (One of the wisest statements I know is Paul Simon’s old song lyric: “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”)

The article begins with the different kinds of bottled water, how you can tell the source of the water, and what regulations apply. In general, the EPA regulates tap water, whereas the FDA regulates bottled water, but only if it is shipped across state lines. Some states regulate bottled water and the industry itself has voluntary standards.

It then goes on to address the beliefs that bottled water is purer, healthier, tastes better and is the more ecologically responsible choice.

Purity is a difficult thing to measure and prove, therefore, “the FDA prohibits bottled-water manufacturers from implying that their water is ‘safer’ or ‘purer’ than any other kind of water.”  It goes on to say: “Bottled water sources are typically tested for harmful contaminants once a week at most. Municipal water supplies are tested hundreds of times every month. Tap water may not be perfectly clear, or it may have a slight chlorine aftertaste, but according to the Minnesota Department of Health, those are merely aesthetic qualities that do not indicate the water is unsafe.”

Purity is not as big a deal as the health benefit, but here too, bottled water falls short. “In May 2005, the ABC news program ‘20/20’ sent five different national brands of bottled water and one sample of tap water taken from a New York City drinking fountain to a microbiologist for testing. The lab tested for contaminants that can cause illness, like E.coli. The results showed no difference whatsoever, in terms of unhealthy contaminants, between the bottled waters and the tap water.” Other tests have shown the same thing. The Mayo Clinic advises: “Tap water and bottled water are generally comparable in terms of safety.” From the National Geographic website:  “Not only does bottled water contribute to excessive waste, but it costs us a thousand times more than water from our faucet at home, and it's likely no safer or cleaner.” Finally, this CNN article from 2013 concludes:  “if you're buying it because you believe it's safer than tap, you may want to start heading to the sink to fill up your glass.”

Taste is also an issue.  Some people are willing to pay a price 500 times higher for better tasting water. “But a couple of very non-scientific, blind taste tests have found that most people – or most people in New York City, to be more accurate – can't actually tell the difference between tap water and bottled water once they're all placed in identical containers.”

The biggest drawback to bottled water is that many organizations and researchers consider it an “environmental nightmare.” From the production operations, to transportation, to disposal of the bottles, to the minimal recycling of bottles, the overuse of resources, the littering/landfill issues, and the associated pollution make bottled water an environmental loser. This was the National Geographic’s primary objection.

So if you are one of the people who contribute to the over $11 billion in annual bottled water sales, please note that the industry itself does not even claim that it is healthier and safer. They state it this way: “Although bottled water has often been likened to tap water, bottled water actually achieved its market stature by enticing consumers away from other packaged beverages perceived as less wholesome than bottled water.” Perhaps the best advice comes from the Readers Digest article in 2008 to “Rethink What You Drink.”

Fluoridation Facts

I stole the above title from a newly released American Dental Association (ADA) pamphlet on the controversy about fluoridation of public drinking water. This is another area where people with little understanding of science have spread falsehoods leading to some resistance to a beneficial practice. A brief review of the executive summary makes it quite clear; fluoride prevents cavities.

Although I have never had doubts about the safety of adding fluoride to drinking water, twice a year I am faced with the question of whether to pay an extra $35 at the dentist for a fluoride treatment. I know there is evidence that these treatments, along with the fluoridation of drinking water and toothpaste, are beneficial for children’s teeth, but I wondered about the effectiveness for adults. 

The fact that my insurance company doesn’t pay for it raises some suspicion. Coverage decisions may be based on cost factors, but one cost factor they must consider is higher future dental bills. Normally they would prefer to pay for prevention than to pay more later.

I began my research on the effectiveness of fluoride treatment for adults at a site billing itself as “the top magazine for dental hygiene professionals.” One hygienist, whose boss wants her to push the treatment to increase business, asks directly whether every patient needs fluoride.

The answer goes to an ADA publication from 2007. (The advisor didn’t know of any more recent updates.) A patient whose risk is low “may not receive additional benefit from professional topical fluoride application.” Low risk is defined as "No incipient or cavitated primary or secondary carious lesions during the last three years and no factors that may increase caries risk." It goes on to say there are other factors to consider, but generally “blanket mandates of fluoride for everyone are not appropriate.”

Consumer Reports gives basically the same answer (with less dentist jargon). “Extra fluoride may be helpful if you’re at increased risk of developing cavities, indicated by frequent tooth decay in recent years, dry mouth caused by medications or disease, or gum recession that exposes the vulnerable tooth roots.” 

They go on to say that home treatments are not effective, and that those in the low risk category should do fine by brushing twice a day with fluoride toothpaste “especially if your water is fluoridated.”

The National Center for Biotechnology Information site reviews a compilation of research on the “effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults.” They believe that the authors' conclusions favoring the use of fluoride treatments for adults “appear to follow from the results presented, although the paucity of more recent studies and poor quality of the included studies limit their reliability and relevance to current populations.” This vague recommendation (also from 2007) is not very compelling.

A Healthline.com page from 2018 asks: “What Are the Benefits, Side Effects, and Recommendations for Fluoride Treatment?” Again the emphasis was on children and adolescents with some discussions of minor side effects of treatments and real dangers of fluoride supplements. A little new information was that it was “best to get fluoride both topically [gel or toothpaste] and systemically [ingested]” from drinking water.

With several references to the 2007 ADA advice, I went there next. In addition to brushing twice a day, flossing and regular dental examinations, a “key to good oral health is fluoride.” Maximum benefit “is achieved when fluoride is available both topically and systemically.” Treatments from a dentist are recommended for adults with high risk factors such as poor oral hygiene, active caries, eating disorders, drug or alcohol abuse, lack of regular professional dental care, high levels of bacteria in the mouth, exposed root surfaces” and a few others.

In my case it seems I have been correct in saving $35 per visit. I eat most of my meals at home, so I am able to brush three times a day. We use fluoridated tap water for cooking food and drinking. (Bottled water is non-existent in the house.) I have not had a cavity in at least ten years. (Knock on wood.) Nor do I have any of the other critical factors or habits.

It’s interesting what a little research – a factor in critical thinking – can do to help with everyday decisions. 

How Can You Believe Those Numbers?

Politicians and other entities trying to raise awareness to one or another kind of problem or injustice love to toss out surprising numbers to gain support for their cause. In many cases these are not real numbers. They could be based on data collected by the program itself with no effort to be unbiased, in fact, the more shocking the better. They may have been based on a single survey that made no effort to confirm results, or they may be in conflict with the results of similar surveys. Like the unverified number of discarded plastic straws based on a small survey for a grade-school project that led to such an uproar, the numbers are often repeated so many times by so many people that everyone assumes they are correct. 

With so many examples, how can we tell what to believe?

Everyone knows that ten thousand steps per day is the recommended amount to stay healthy and to boost longevity – or do they? This NPR piece tells us “the idea of walking at least 10,000 steps a day for health goes back decades to a marketing campaign launched in Japan to promote a pedometer” and is not some kind of magic number. In a recent study published in JAMA, older women who averaged 4,400 steps per day were better off than those taking only 2,700, with little or no benefit over about 7,500 steps. This finding was confirmed elsewhere.

The myth of 10,000 daily steps is akin to the 8 glasses of water daily. There is no basis. Someone made it up. The best advice, to drink when you are thirsty, continues to be drowned out by the “hydration parrots.”

Other examples include the unacceptably high number of school shootings. The Campus Safety Magazine puts the number for 2018 at 82, “the highest there have ever been since 1970.” They mention that the second highest was 59 in 2006, so it can hardly be called a trend, perhaps more of a blip. They then state that the majority didn’t happen on school property – indicating a rather loose definition of school shooting. Compare that to the Wikipedia list of each occurrence by location with a total of only 36 for the entire year.

A Time article calls into question the widely circulated number of one in five women in the US having been raped. They call that number misleading noting “the striking disparity between CDC figures and the Justice Department’s crime statistics based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (which includes crimes unreported to the police).” This article provides much detail and there is room for doubt (as I pointed out earlier), yet we continue to hear the same number.

Of course everyone also knows that crime and teen pregnancy are worse than ever – not so fast! “Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century.” Here is a link to that Pew survey from earlier this year showing several graphs on violent and property crimes all heading in the right direction, although you’d never know it from the news coverage. That explains why the public perception is the opposite. Likewise a site called the Seeker reports  “the fact is that teen pregnancy is low and has been dropping.”

Can the recent increase in tornados be attributed to Climate Change? This article from a Carbon Brief posting calls it highly uncertain – with references to the data. “What is clear is that there is no observable increase in the number of strong tornadoes in the US over the past few decades,” adding: “Any role for climate change in affecting the conditions for tornado formation is still very much an open question and the subject of ongoing research by the scientific community.”

Finally, are there more black men in prison in the US than in colleges and universities? It’s a handy throwaway line for a speech emphasizing victimhood, but I picked that one apart very nicely about 5 years ago.

We can’t rely on the orators, advocates, media and advertisers to get it right. Use critical thinking. Question everything.

Deceptive Truth

Forget about fake news and alternative facts.  The truth can be used to deceive just as easily.  As Emily Dickenson wrote:

Tell the Truth but tell it slant –

Success in Circuit lies

This came to mind when I received the following graphic from a loyal reader forwarded from the local newspaper.

This is probably a true estimate of how many Americans (56%) believe their drinking water is unsafe.  It’s also true that they are mistaken in that belief.

According to the government Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):  “The United States has one of the safest water supplies in the world.  The EPA requires every municipality to test for the presence and levels of over 90 different contaminants in public drinking water and to provide an annual report to all customers.

Wikipedia adds that in 2016, “over 90 percent of the nation's community water systems were in compliance” with those EPA standards.

A Harvard site warns about polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), saying they “exceed federally recommended safety levels in public drinking-water supplies for 6 million people in the United States, according to a new study…”  But as a fraction of over 320 million people in the US, that’s less than 2%.

Instead of reassuring, the media emphasizes disasters and calamities about safe drinking water like this example from National Geographic.  But at the end of that article, after presenting the scary stuff,  they admit, "in spite of all the good reasons to be concerned about drinking water safety, resorting to bottles is not a sensible reflex."  Quoting their expert, an environmental scientist at Duke University, "People think bottled water is safer, but there is zero evidence that is true. The quality of water in city tap water is regulated far more closely than bottled water."

So municipalities spend billions of dollars annually so we can wash our clothes and dishes and take showers in water that’s safe to drink while the majority of Americans believe it’s toxic and spend billions more on bottled water.  This newspaper could have easily looked this up, but it’s not their job to educate.  It’s their job to sell newspapers, and scary “facts” sell better.

The next day I set a ketchup bottle on the table and saw (proudly displayed) on the label:  No High Fructose Corn Syrup, No GMO Ingredients.  Although these two statements are technically true, they are mainly intended to lure uninformed shoppers.

First, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) for some reason has gotten a bad reputation among food purists; but fructose, glucose and sucrose are all sugars.  This FDA website explains the tiny chemical difference between HFCS and sugar.  They conclude:  “We are not aware of any evidence…that there is a difference in safety between foods containing HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 and foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweeteners with approximately equal glucose and fructose content, such as sucrose, honey, or other traditional sweeteners.”

These facts of no chemical or health differences are backed up by other sources.  And even those that give reasons to avoid HFCS say it is no worse for us than sugar.

So it’s true, but slightly deceptive – the ketchup contains no HFCS; it contains sugar instead!

Second, the main ingredient in ketchup is tomato concentrate from tomatoes.  As I’ve written before, there are no GMO tomatoes!  Likewise, the label on the Non-GMO orange juice doesn’t mention that there are also no GMO oranges.  Non-GMO statements in both these cases are totally true – but meaningless – except to those incurious people who don’t care about real truth.

That brings us to a recent CBS story about a Facebook executive concerned that “the social media platform may be hurting American democracy” and that they were “too slow to recognize Russian interference in the 2016 election” intended to further divide society as the Russians weaponized information to sow discord.

How can anyone “weaponize” information?  It starts with Americans jumping to conclusions on the basis of popular opinion, weak evidence, information that reinforces their own biases and truths that “tell it slant.”  The distress here should not be over the negative aspects of Facebook or any other media but over a severe weakness in critical thinking, a skill in great demand as we cope with the every-increasing speed and breadth of dissemination coupled with a serious decrease in quality of information.  The problem is not with the Russian posters or the platform; it's with readers who don't question and research.

What We Put in Our Mouth

A few days ago, my wife read a news story about the “raw water” movement in California.  It sounded outrageous, especially with the NBC headline:  “‘Raw water’ sound good to you? Then maybe diarrhea does, too.”  Untreated water may contain various harmful bacteria, farm runoff and other chemicals “that can cause long-term health effects, such as kidney and liver damage, nervous system disorders and birth defects.”  As people around the world crave clean drinking water, some Americans think it’s trendy to go back to nature.

I put it aside until I saw this CBS story about teens daring each other to eat laundry detergent.  That makes an interesting comparison to adults following every food trend that comes along.

First a brief summary of the detergent story – the latest social media fad is teens daring each other to put poisonous detergent pods in their mouths.  It’s called the "Tide Pod Challenge."  Those are the same pods government agencies have been recommending parents be very careful about buying, because toddlers and seniors with dementia mistake the colorful pods for candy.  Ten deaths have been reported.  Teens have no excuse and most know better, but at that age peer pressure is a powerful force.

The raw water story inspired me to look for other food trends.  What a surprise!  The search results for “2018 food trends” listed pages of sites.  I chose just a few to see what they held and soon I came to understand that what adults put in their mouths is often influenced by peer pressure as well – even if they too should know better. 

The first one I scanned asked:  “Always looking to be ahead of the curve when it comes to food trends?”  (Talk about pretentious!)  “The National Restaurant Association compiled the data by surveying 700 American Culinary Federation members earlier this year and asking them to rate over 100 items as 2018’s predicted ‘hot trend,’ ‘yesterday’s news,’ or ‘perennial favorite,’ respectively.”  Well, who would want their friends to find out that their food choices were so last year?  This is ridiculous on its face – hot trends, an American Culinary Federation?

But there was more.  Another site informed me:  “In recent years, quinoa, sorghum, teff and buckwheat have been the ‘superfoods’ of choice, but times are changing and other foods are taking the spotlight thanks to their spot-on nutritional content.”  The superfoods of last year are being replaced by the latest food trends that “may include nut oils, maqui berries, chaga mushrooms and tiger nuts.”  Later in the story appears a picture of two cartons of hemp milk, one labeled as a superfood, the other contains Omega 3 – 6, vitamin B12, vitamin D, and is gluten free, soy free, and carrageenan free, carrageenan, derived from seaweed is used for its gelling, thickening, and stabilizing properties.  Apparently we should avoid it like the plague!  You won’t find any of that stuff in a superfood, no matter how natural the seaweed is!

Finally, I ran into a discussion of something called hydrogen water, great for athletes as it promises to boost energy, supply antioxidants, and remove lactic acid.  (Lactic acid is another subject to look up before believing the negative press.  See this in Runner’s World.)  You can order hydrogen water on Amazon.  For $17.99 (with $12.00 shipping) you get 7 pouches holding slightly more than one quart each.   That’s 1.75 gallons of water for only $30!  Better hurry; when I checked, there were only 18 left in stock.  Compare that with tap water, which costs about a quarter of a penny per gallon.

The article goes on:  “Admittedly, the science in this area [of hydrogen water] is weak at best, but we love the clean crisp flavor (and it might have helped to make our hangover a little less intense). If you're thirsty and feeling like the tap water isn't cutting it, give this a go.”  If tap water isn’t cutting it you can also buy a beer at a baseball game for less!  But food trends are not to be approached with logic.

In the end we have teens following trends and adults following trends.  The difference is that the consequences to the teens and the “raw water” crowd may be near-term and very uncomfortable, if not fatal.  For the rest, the consequences are delayed and disconnected.  They wonder why they have to work well into retirement, forgetting that tap water was not good enough or that they have no savings left after throwing away good money on the latest superfood.

Hydration and Littering

 “The federal government announced Wednesday it will eliminate a policy that allowed national parks like the Grand Canyon to ban the sale of bottled water in an effort to curb litter.”  Fox News explains that the rules were set up in 2011 because empty bottles scattered throughout some of the parks had become a major problem.  One problem was the emphasis on bottled water.  They did not ban the sale of other beverages, such as sugary soft drinks that are typically made of sturdier plastic.  The policy was obviously not completely thought through in the first place, setting them up as an easy target for objections.

Those objections did come and the National Park Service officials changed their minds.  But instead of just admitting they were wrong or banning the rest of the soft drinks, they said they wanted to "expand hydration options for recreationalists, hikers, and other visitors to national parks."  Falling back on the idea of hydration they tried to make it sound like a health-related decision.  There are a couple of questionable aspects to this.

Later in the article is one sentence that probably gets more toward the truth:  “ The bottled water and beverage industry have previously lobbied aggressively to keep bottled water at U.S. national parks.”  As in most cases, follow the money.

But what is all this about hydration?  This is one of those urban myths that people just won’t drop.  I even heard someone talking about pre-hydration the other day, comparing drinking lots of water (or sports drink) to applying sunscreen before you go out.

More and more experts are coming forward with contrary, more balanced advice.  Here is an example.  “Drink when you're thirsty. Stop drinking when your thirst is quenched. Obey that one rule and there is no risk of dehydration,” says Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a University of Pennsylvania kidney specialist.

Later on in that hydration article is a statement that shouldn’t surprise anyone: “Much research on human hydration [is] funded in part by bottled water industry.”

  

Another study found “no connection between hydration and the performance of athletes.”  It reiterates the sound, moderate advice to drink when thirsty.  There is no need to go overboard or walk through life tethered to a water bottle.

The final point is about bottled water itself.  I have elaborated on this subject in the past.  With a few rare exceptions or in emergency situations, bottled water is typically no purer than tap water and sells at a hundred times the price.  From time to time the bottled water companies are taken to task by some government agency for questionable practices or claims.  Some merely use tap water from another location.  Most recently a lawsuit cites Poland Spring Water for deceiving customers by “bottling common groundwater that doesn’t meet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's definition of spring water.” 

Lately I’ve noticed in some airports an absence of the usual drinking fountains outside restrooms.  The only option is to buy the bottles from the vendors.  Again, follow the money.

Yes, it is important to have water with you when hiking in a national park (or anywhere).  It is smart (critical thinking) to buy a water bottle or canteen for the occasion and fill it at the tap or refill it at a drinking fountain.  It is responsible not to throw bottles or any kind of litter around the trails or campgrounds.  It shows perspective to understand that it’s unnecessary to pre-hydrate or take other extraordinary actions.  Drink when you are thirsty; it’s as simple as that.  So many of these problems can be easily solved by right behavior rather than by government regulations.