Chinese drywall – an environmental problem ignored?

Blogger Michael D. Shaw wonders why, at a time when a heightened sensitivity to chemicals in the environment has activists and the media going into panic mode,  no-one  is paying attention to the problem of imported Chinese drywall:

“Upwards of 60,000 homes, and possibly as many as 300,000, are affected by the sulfide spewing gypsum board. In addition to the highly publicized corrosion of all sorts of metal parts, including air conditioning coils, and the obnoxious sulfide odors, nearly all residents of these homes are reporting health effects—usually upper respiratory complaints.

Moreover, there are dozens of reports of affected families who have left their homes, whose symptoms disappear completely in a few days. Absent actual medical tests, field confirmation of health effect etiology does not get a whole lot better than this.”

Where, asks Shaw, is the outrage? Could it be that even though ordinary consumers are affected in a real rather than hypothetical way, there is just nothing in the issue for either green groups or federal officials to get excited about?

 

Salty stroke risk

It may not be the best time to hear this, considering many people probably recently consumed a huge Thanksgiving meal; however, a new meta-analysis suggests that we stop binging on salt. Not only does it put people at greater risk for elevated blood pressure, but the research finds that it could lead to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke.

The meta-analysis, published in the BMJ, found that decreasing daily salt intake to 5 grams (about a teaspoon) was associated with a 23 percent lower stroke rate and a 17 percent difference in the rate of cardiovascular disease. MedPage Today reports that on average, Americans’ daily salt intake is about 10 grams, while the World Heath Organization suggests only 5 grams per day.

The review analyzed thirteen studies which included more than 170,000 people and now recommends that salt intake should be reduced by 5 grams around the world. According to HealthDay, the researchers claim this change could prevent about a million deaths from stroke and almost three million deaths due to cardiovascular disease worldwide.

The truth behind Thanksgiving myths

Carl Bialik, The Numbers Guy over at The Wall Street Journal, breaks down some of the most popular Thanksgiving myths. Is Thanksgiving actually the busiest travel time of the year? Do Americans really consume 46 million turkeys over the holiday? Bialik says both claims are not supported by government data.

The National Turkey Federation estimates that 46 million turkeys will be eaten over Thanksgiving. The number is based off of projected turkey purchases throughout the month of November.  IBISWorld USA, a market research firm, estimates 47 million. Bialik explains how both of these numbers are an exaggeration:

“Based on reports from slaughterhouses, the [United States Department of Agriculture] says 23% of the 270 million turkeys processed in the U.S. last year, by pounds, were drawn down in October and November of last year. That translates into 68.3 million turkeys slaughtered in those two months, assuming the birds were of average plumpness. If Americans really did eat about 46 million turkeys on Thanksgiving last year, their turkey consumption on other days in October and November would have been about half the daily average the rest of the year.”

As for Thanksgiving being the busiest travel time of the year? Not true either, says Bialik. The number of commercial flights shows that Thanksgiving does not come close to being the busiest travel period:

“In fact, no day last November figured in the top 220 out of the 366 days in 2008, based on the number of flights reported by airlines to the Department of Transportation. While the recession cut into late autumn travel last year, November hasn’t had a day in the top 35 most-traveled in years, according to DOT figures, which track the daily number of flights, not passengers. Instead, most of the busiest days for U.S. airports hit during the summer, when school is out.”

To read more about these two myths and to find out the one title that Thanksgiving can actually claim, check out Bialik’s article – Claims of Thanksgiving Excess Fueled by Feast of Fuzzy Data.

The Street Stops Here with STATS fellow Patrick McCloskey

Watch author and senior STATS fellow Patrick McCloskey talk with Ben Birnbaum, editor of Boston College Magazine, about his book The Street Stops Here – an account of a year in the life of a Catholic School in Harlem.

For more information, you can also read Patrick McCloskey’s article for STATS, Making the grade in Memphis. Catholic schools now provide a lifeline for disadvantaged, non-Catholic minorities in urban America, boosting graduation and college acceptance rates, and outperforming many equivalent public schools. But they are also disappearing from the very neighborhoods that need them most. McCloskey reports on how one diocese has bucked the trend, what it means to one family, and what it could mean for America.

Vital Statistics

Wii may actually be a real form of exercise

Games from Wii Fit and Wii Sports really do help burn off some calories. The study, funded by Nintendo and presented at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association, found that about one-third of the games in Wii Sports and Wii Fit are equivalent to moderate intensity exercise. The game that helps to burn the most calories is the single-arm stand in Wii Fit, followed by boxing in Wii Sports.

How communication drives work performance

According to a new survey by Watson Wyatt, companies that have effective communication have a 47 percent higher return to shareholders over a period of five years. The survey also found that highly effective communicators are 37 percent more likely to report that their social media tools are cost-effective. Watson Wyatt defines effective communication as having courage, innovation and discipline.

How efficient are energy-efficient light bulbs?

A new study published in Engineering and Technology magazine reveals that the packaging for energy efficient light bulbs may be misleading consumers. The study found that the energy efficient bulbs lose an average of 22 percent of their brightness over their lifetime, compared to about 7 percent with traditional light bulbs.

Sleep off fat and other tall tales from TV health reporting

NPR’s On the Media recently had a very interesting discussion about the dismal state of television’s health and science reporting.  Here’s a look at some of the examples.

1. NBC Today show clip on losing weight while you sleep.

In this segment, Meredith Viera says 63 percent of Americans do not get enough sleep, which just happens to coincide with the percentage of adults who are overweight or obese. Perhaps more sleep will make you slimmer, reasons Today, which then turns to the well-known science journal, Glamour, to test this incredible hypothesis on a sample of seven women. As Health News Review Editor and Health Journalism Professor Gary Schwitzer says, “it’s just sad, and… insulting to women viewers.”

2. CBS Early Show segment on whether blue food dye can prevent paralysis.

When researchers from the University of Rochester Medical Center injected rats suffering from spinal cord injuries with the compound Brilliant Blue G (BBG), used in M&Ms and Gatorade, they were able to walk again with a limp (the rats also temporarily turned blue). However, CBS waits to tell viewers that the study was on rats until two minutes into the three minute segment. Schwitzer calls this “unforgivable” and says it gives viewers a sense of false hope.

Schwitzer, who leads a project to evaluate the accuracy of health news in the media has decided his team will no longer rate every item of medical news on TV because of the ongoing relentless espousal of dismal scientific standards.

Margaret Lewin on Evidence Based Medicine

Originally posted on our collaborative site, Ourblook.

OurBlook interview with Dr. Margaret Lewin, medical director of Cinergy Health

Please provide your definition of evidence-based medicine.

ML: Evidence-based medicine is the practice of medicine in which decision-making is based on evidence acquired from carefully-controlled clinical trials.

What are the pros of evidence-based medicine?

ML: The pros are that these decisions are statistically most likely to achieve the desired clinical result given the current state of knowledge and might lower the costs of delivering healthcare.

What are the cons of evidence-based medicine?

ML: The cons are that .

– There are only a limited number of clinical trials whose outcomes are conclusive enough to answer the enormous number of clinical questions.

– Controlled clinical trials are expensive and usually take years to reach their conclusion; even then, they usually require confirmation by other trials.

– Medical science continues to advance at such a pace that clinical trials cannot keep up with the questions raised.

– It is likely that many treatment options not proven by evidence-based medicine will be rationed (i.e., they will not be reimbursed by public or private insurance).

How do you apply it in your own practice?

ML: When clinical trials give evidence of superior results of a given therapeutic intervention, I recommend that intervention.

Would there be a significant impact on the U.S. healthcare system if it were implemented much more widely?

ML: Medical problems could be solved more efficiently and effectively, leading to better clinical outcomes.

Does the reform legislation now before Congress carry provisions for evidence-based medicine and if so, are they adequate? If not, what should be added?

ML: These bills at least give lip-service to Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) … but it is not clear that this research will be funded adequately over either the short- or long-term. The question of rationing has been addressed but not answered.

How does evidence-based medicine affect the legal malpractice problem that plagues healthcare providers?

ML: If a medical decision is based on such evidence, one would hope that even bad outcomes could not be attributed to malpractice by the practitioner.

Grumpy is good for careful but not creative thinking

According to new research published in Australasian Science, being grumpy isn’t all bad. Those in a cranky mood are less gullible, think more critically and tend to do better with decision-making.

Joe Forgas, a psychology professor from The University of New South Wales, designed experiments that would induce either a positive or negative mood on the study’s participants. According to BBC News, Forgas would do this by showing films that invoked either happy or sad emotions and having the participants think about positive or negative life experiences. He then had them partake in a variety of tasks, including judging the truthfulness of urban myths and providing an accurate recollection of an event.

Those in a bad mood performed better in each task, making fewer overall mistakes and communicating more effectively. The UK Telegraph reports that those in a grumpy mood were also less likely to make rash decisions based on racial or religious prejudices.

However, a positive mood also has its upsides. Professor Forgas explains:

“Whereas positive mood seems to promote creativity, flexibility, co-operation and reliance on mental shortcuts, negative moods trigger more attentive, careful thinking, paying greater attention to the external world.”

Not-so-smart-smear tactics from Consumer Reports

Here’s an update to Consumer Reports charge that STATS is funded by ExxonMobil. Apparently, because STATS received grants from the Sarah Scaife foundation (though not in recent years), and Scaife had stock in ExxonMobil,  therefore STATS was being funded by ExxonMobil.

By the same logic, every employee for Consumer Reports should now disclose the nature of their stock investments and retirement accounts – just in case they turn out to be funded [sic] by the companies whose products they rate.

Meanwhile, back to the science – a top EPA expert today rejected Consumer Reports claim about BPA.

STATS responds to Consumer Reports smear tactics

Consumer Reports posted a response on its blog to STATS criticism of its recent report on BPA. The following is a letter sent by STATS President, S. Robert Lichter Ph.D to the magazine:

In their response to Trevor Butterworth’s criticisms, Andrea Rock and Urvashi Rangan devoted most of their efforts to trying to discredit STATS by linking it to industy. Luckily, this is a scientific debate, in which the best science will ultimately win, regardless of the rhetorical tactics adopted by some participants. Mr. Butterworth will respond further to the scientific issues. But it is necessary to reply immediately to the institutional allegations.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) was founded in 1984 to conduct social scientific studies of media coverage. The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) was founded ten years later with a different mission – to improve the transmission of scientific and quantitative information to the public. They are independent non-profit organizations that share some administrative personnel and expenses; both are affiliates of George Mason University. The STATS websites describes them as “sister organizations.”

To avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest in its critiques, STATS does not accept industry funding. However, Rock and Rangen claim to have examined documents showing that STATS has received funding from ExxonMobil. Since no such funding has taken place to my knowledge, I call on the authors either to publicly release any such documents so that everyone can examine them or to retract this assertion.

The authors also cast aspersions on CMPA for having once done a study for a tobacco company. Specifically, in 1994 CMPA conducted a content analysis on media coverage of tobacco for Philip Morris. CMPA has done many such social scientific content analyses commissioned by groups in both the private and non-profit sectors. For example, the same year we studied media coverage of tobacco, we examined television’s coverage of Hispanics for the National Council of La Raza.

The most salient question is whether, as the authors intimate, CMPA’s critical faculties were bought off by Big Tobacco money. As it happens, during the 1990’s we were actively involved in conducting and publicizing research on the risks of tobacco in a series of articles, newsletters, and public statements, including Congressional testimony.

The publications began appearing in 1993 (the year before Philip Morris commissioned a content analysis) and culminated in a 1999 Yale University Press book showing that cancer researchers not only “placed tobacco in a league of its own among cancer agents,” they believed the media understates the cancer risks associated with tobacco.

STATS also has an extensive history of criticizing the health risks of tobacco. For a lengthier explication of all this material, click here.

Rhetorical devices aside, it is well to remember that taking industry money isn’t the same as doing industry’s bidding.

S. Robert Lichter
Professor of Communication
Director, CMPA and STATS
George Mason University