Crime falls despite recession and other odd stats making news

According to the British Crime Survey, the overall risk of being a victim of any crime in England and Wales has  hit a historic low – despite fears that the severe economic downturn would create a “tidal wave of crime.” The data mirrors U.S. crime stats that came out in December, which show a similar decline. (Press Association)

New York had fewer traffic fatalities  in 2009 than it did at any time since 1910, when getting run over by a horse was commonplace. (New York Times)

Minnesota saw new HIV infections rise 13 percent in 2009, “the biggest increase in 17 years.” (Star Tribune)

Labour party supporters in Britain are less supportive of economic policies which aim at redistributing income to the less-well off than they were 16 years ago, when Tony Blair took control of the Labour Party – 38 percent to 51 percent. (Daily Telegraph via British National Attitudes Survey)

2,423,995 people died in the U.S. in 2007, but there were almost twice as many babies were born. (Dr. Murray Feingold, Gatehouse News Service)

New Jersey is facing a doctor shortage: “The projected shortfall is 2,835 doctors – 1,006 which will be needed in primary care, and 1,829 specialists.” (NJ.com)

Vital Statistics

Who would have thought…study finds people are happier on the weekend

New research finds that people are in a better mood on the weekend. This study falls directly into our “Department of Obvious Research” category; however, there are some findings worth noting.

Not only do people feel better mentally, but physically as well. The survey results showed that people also feel more competent on the weekend than during the week, and that mostly everyone is happier on the weekend, including those who are happy at their jobs. Happiness transcended a variety of factors including profession, salary, age and marital status.

Study suggests self-control is contagious

After conducting a series of five experiments, a research team out of the University of Georgia says that self-control is contagious. Their results show that simply observing or thinking about someone with good self-control increases one’s own willpower. This sounds like good news; however, they also found the opposite to be true. Those with bad self-control influence those around them negatively.

This study may be the first to show that self-control is infectious across all types of behaviors. For example, they discovered if someone observers a person with high self-control when it comes to diet, this could make the observer more likely to exhibit self-control with a variety of their own personal goals.

High levels of Omega-3 may help you live longer

New research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds yet another benefit to omega-3 fatty acids – it may just help you live longer. Research finds that heart patients who consumed high amounts of omega-3 had longer telomeres, the section of DNA associated with life span.

Telomere length was measured over a period of five years in 608 patients who had previous heart problems. Compared to patients with low omega-3 levels in their white blood cells, those with high levels of the fatty acid had considerably less shortening of telomeres over the five year span.

Kids spending 8 hours a day using media

The amount of time children in the U.S.  spend using media had increased drastically to 8 hours a day. The Kaiser Family Foundation has found that over the past five years, the amount of time 8 to 18 year olds have spent using multiple types of media has increased by 1 hour and 17 minutes a day.

Over 2,000 American children between the ages of 8 and 18 were surveyed for this study. The report says this dramatic rise is in part due to the increased use of cell phones and iPods. In a period of five years, the number of children with cell phones has increased from 39 percent to 66 percent, and the number of kids with iPods has increased from 18 percent to 76 percent.

Pharm party phever!

Perhaps it was the same with in ancient times, endless prurient gossip about where the Maenads were and what kind of orgiastic mayhem they were up to with Dionysius and the Satyrs.  But as was the case with Dionysius, and the whole panoply of demigodly debauchery, so it appears to be with “pharm parties.” As Jack Shafer, Slate’s Media Critic, complains, pharm parties don’t exist, and though he keeps writing, year after year,  about the fact that they don’t exist, amazingly, the rest of the media keep insisting that they do.

For those of you blissfully unaware of how youth gets wasted, a “pharm party,” as Shafer puts it, is where kids gather to “dump the pills they’ve stolen from their parents’ medicine cabinets into a big bowl and then scoop out and swallow random handfuls.”

It’s not just their parents who aren’t noticing the medicinal depletion: In the very same way that no-one really saw Dionysius turn sailors into dolphins after he himself turned into a lion, no-one has really seen a pharm party. In all the media coverage there isn’t a single eye-witness. Not one. Shafer even finds a historian an ethnographer, Montana Miller, who has been searching for evidence of a pharm party. She has found nothing.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, of course; but the continued absence of proof is a reliable indicator that something is a myth.

Teflon and Thyroidism

Hot on the heels of a previous study from Exeter University in England mining a massive U.S. database of health information for associations between chemicals and disease, comes a new study by the same researchers that exposure to PFOA  – Perlurooctanoic Acid, a precursor chemical to Teflon, is associated with

Clive Cookson, one of the best science journalists writing in English (one of the dwindling number of science journalists writing in English, alas), notes in the Financial Time, that one should not read too much into the findings:

“Independent experts urged people to treat the report with caution. Although the link found by the Exeter researchers seemed significant – people with the highest 25% of PFOA concentrations were more than twice as likely to report current thyroid disease than those with the lowest 50% of PFOA – many “confounding factors” might have caused the association.

Much more research will be needed to show whether or not there is a causal link.”

As STATS noted with the previous Exeter study linking heart disease to BPA, cross-sectional studies — snapshots of the apparant relationship between two factors made at a discrete point in time — are blunt scientific instruments, incapable of determining causality, not least because disease develops over time and levels of the chemical over the same time may vary considerably.

Environmental Health Perspectives rushed the abstract of this paper into print, a move which means omitting full discussion of the methodology and the limitations. Cynics might  interpret that as a marketing strategy to maximize the news effect, while minimizing journalistic scrutiny. Even if that wasn’t the intention, it was certainly the outcome to judge by some of the other media coverage.

When Americans think of Europe, they’re not thinking of Bolton

Clive Crook, FT and National Journal columnist has a great essay on the problem of measuring whether Europe is superior to the U.S., or vice versa. One of the problems in this game, which pits the American right against the left, is that, frankly, it’s easy to romance Paris and Milan, and ignore Crook’s birthplace, Bolton, in Lancashire, England. It’s also easy to conflate the bejeweled cities with the entire realm: but Paris with France and France with Europe. As Crook writes:

“‘Europe’ is a dangerous generalization, whichever side in this discussion you intend to take. It is not one country, but many. You cannot even say exactly how many, because the region is a fluctuating idea that depends on your notions of geography and the period under consideration. Within Europe — as within the United States — there are rich areas and poor areas; places that are growing and places in decline. And within Europe, political borders still matter a lot. Forms of government and economic arrangements — levels of taxation and public spending, the role of trade unions, the scope of economic regulation — all vary.”

It seems more sensible, given such variation, to measure on the level of the state; so where, then, does France rank? It would be unfair to spoil the result by stealing the punchline, so here’s the link.

Trust me, I found it on the Internet

Sometimes the more information we have, the less clarity about what is true, as this hilarious post from Mike Fumento points out. Google may be great, but it can’t rate the quality of it’s findings.

FDA refuses activist demands to ban BPA: It’s safe, but “novel” findings should be studied further

The spinning has started in media, but it’s better to go straight to the Food and Drug Administration paper on what it’s doing about bisphenol A:

“Studies employing standardized toxicity tests have thus far supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA[.] However, on the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects, both the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and FDA have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.  In cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research is carrying out in-depth studies to answer key questions and clarify uncertainties about the risks of BPA.”

Thus, more studies are needed. In the history of science “novel” findings sometimes turn out to be correct, thus advancing knowledge, or they turn out to be false (it is worth noting that the EPA has already failed to confirm some of these “novel” findings in a recent paper). Either way the  issue will remain a topic of controversy for the next two years. Political, media and activist pressure on the FDA to curb BPA — based on exaggerated and misleading activist complaints about science being ignored — have been intense; and the hyper-cautious approach of today’s decision reflects that; but, at the same time, the FDA position on the current safety of BPA concurs with the European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Japan and even California. Expect that salient fact to be ignored in the coming, days, weeks, and months, as it has been one of the many crucial aspects of the controversy ignored in the media coverage over the past three years.  STATS will continue to analyze the gaps between good science and the media’s coverage of the issue in the coming months and years. In the meantime, don’t panic.

Treehugger, Huffington Post ask: When will STATS concede that BPA is a threat?

Treehugger.com – a widely read environmental activist site – says in a comment reposted on the Huffington Post:

“At some point, even the people at Stats.org are going to have to acknowledge the growing pile of studies from all over the world adding to the case against Bisphenol A (BPA). The latest, From the University of Exeter, looked at the CDC (American Center for Disease Control) data and found that 60 year old men with the highest levels of BPA have about a 45% greater risk of heart disease than those with lower levels.”

The study doesn’t, in fact, say this. It is a cross-sectional analysis that expresses risk in the form of odds ratios, and odds ratios are not the same as percentage changes in risk. More importantly, cross-sectional studies cannot determine causality.  They are snapshots in time of two factors and the relationship between the two may be arbitrary. As the Exeter researchers themselves note in the actual study, “The cross sectional nature of the associations reported need to be treated with caution, as it is theoretically possible, for example, that those with cardiovascular disease change their diets in such a way as to increase BPA exposure.”

In other words, people who eat more fatty food are at greater risk from heart disease – and they may also be more likely to ingest more BPA by virtue of eating more packaged or canned food. This is not a trivial objection to the study – in fact, it’s why an identical, earlier study by the same researchers was rejected by the European Union’s agency responsible for evaluating BPA. The Exeter researchers claim they have replicated their key finding, thus giving their claim for an association more weight, but many of the endpoints they measured lost statistical significance the second time around. In research that mines data for associations, this is called an alarm bell. They also concede that biologically plausible causes for disease based on such minute changes in BPA are speculative.

When the researchers are so open about not finding a causal link to heart disease and the need to interpret their results with caution, why should STATS charge ahead, like Treehugger, and pronounce the link and the risk certain? (To read our review of the Exeter study, click here).

More to the point, whether there is a “growing pile of studies from all over the world” indicating a risk from BPA all depends on what and how you count. So far, not a single risk assessment has pronounced BPA a threat anywhere in the world. Here’s a flavor of the counter evidence:

Since the EU risk assessment in 2006, there has been a review by Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (2007); an examination of claims of neurotoxicity by the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (2008); an update to the European Union’s risk assessment (2008); an evaluation by the French Food Safety Agency (2008); a risk assessment by NSF International, a World Health Organization collaborative center (2008); a review of new data by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (2008); a joint regulatory review for manufacturers by the FDA and Health Canada; a survey by Health Canada (2009); a risk assessment by Food Standards Australia/New Zealand (2009); two more surveys by Health Canada, one on canned powdered infant formula, the second on bottled water products (2009); a hazard assessment by California’s Environmental Protection Agency (2009); and a modeling study of BPA in humans by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (2009).

Risk assessments take research, like that of the Exeter study, and see whether it is statistically robust and methodologically rigorous enough to be used for the purposes of risk assessment. Not all peer-reviewed research is equal, and every scientist knows this.  Unfortunately, with BPA, the activist groups and the media recognize no such quality control. (And for those who don’t think quality control in statistics is important, read Richard A. Friedman M.D.’s analysis in the New York Times of a recent study on antidepressants which claimed that they were ineffective.)

For example, the latest study from the EPA failed to prove the low-dose hypothesis (the second from the EPA that failed to replicate the original theory of BPA’s risk to humans). And both went ignored. One of the EPA’s and the world’s leading experts on endocrine disruption dismissed claims made by Consumer Reports about the research as “an ad hominem attack… without scientific merit.” And he was ignored. The lead author of the European Union’s 2006 risk assessement said the Consumer Report’s investigation into BPA in cans was “highly biased” and hard to believe, but who listened to him (except STATS)?

It has become an article of faith in the environmental movement and on the left that BPA is lethal, and the U.S. government irresponsible for not banning it. But even the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has conceded that many of the studies it funded and which claimed a risk from BPA, were insufficiently rigorous for risk assessment. It has now toughened up its criteria for funding BPA research – demanding of its grantees the same experimental methodologies used in those studies which failed to find a risk.

Until risk assessments around the world find evidence of a risk from BPA, STATS is bound to give greater weight to their judgment. This is also why each new study needs to be read critically – and why studies that don’t find a risk need to taken seriously. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Did your country make the cut?

The Quality of Life Index, published by International Living magazine for the 30th year, recently revealed its list of the top places to live in the world. Congratulations to France for grabbing the number one spot for the fifth year in a row. The UK didn’t fare quite as well, falling five spots to number 25 on the list. The Daily Mail says it best: “While the British are infamous for a love of TV dinners and binge drinking, the French savour the finer things in life.”

194 countries were surveyed on nine categories – Cost of Living, Culture and Leisure, Economy, Environment, Freedom, Health, Infrastructure, Safety and Risk and Climate. International Living gathers data from sources such as the World Health Organization and government websites; however, according to the website they also take into account what contributing editors have to say about the list. Well at least they flat out state their subjectivity in an appropriately titled sidebar called “Our Western Bias”.

France managed to receive 100 points for both its health care system and safety according to the International Business Times. They totaled 81 points in Culture and Leisure, proving that good food and good wine equal big points. The U.S. fell to number seven this year, mostly due to the economy. Italy rounds out the top ten, getting points for their health care system and rich culture. Here is a look at the top ten:

1. France
2. Australia
3. Switzerland
4. Germany
5. New Zealand
6. Luxembourg
7. United States
8. Belgium
9. Canada
10. Italy

You can click here to see the top 25 places to live.

Autism from shampoo? Washington Post’s clueless review of “staggering” claims

Would you let me wire your house? I’ll do your plumbing too; I’ve never done any of these things, or even read about how to do them, but don’t worry, I’m pretty smart – and above all, I’m cheap.

Would you fall for this kind of sales pitch in real life? I certainly doubt it; but it seems at the Washington Post it’s okay to do something broadly equivalent with a topic that demands expert knowledge: The paper has assigned a book, which claims that kids are  developing autism, ADD, and cancer from daily exposure to chemicals in shampoo and other products  to a reviewer who has, apparently, no scientific knowledge to determine whether these claims are true or false.

Lisa Bonos, a copyeditor at the Post with a degree in Jewish studies says the findings in “Slow Death by Rubber Duck”  are “staggering.” Written by two Canadian environmental activists, Rick Smith and Bruce Laurie, the book charts their attempts to demonstrate that daily life is one long dangerous bath in toxic chemicals. According to Bonos, it

“…features not only the authors’ self-experiments and struggles to create cleaner homes for their families but also their parsing of scientific studies of these chemicals and links to such problems as birth defects, childhood autism, attention-deficit disorder, hormonal imbalances and rising cancer rates.”

Leave aside the bizarreness of self-experimentation (what regulatory agency would endorse such an approach?)  it’s the “parsing” that’s the problem. Bonos seems to assume that what the authors claim about the scientific research is simply true.  And the degree to which this assumption is misplaced is given warning by simply asking whether cancer rates are, in fact, rising?

According to a recent announcement by the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries,’ they’re not:  cancer incidence and death rates have been declining.

Similarly, while there has been lots of chatter in the media that chemicals in household products cause cancer, the point made in 2004,  by Aaron Blair, Ph.D., the chief of the Occupational Epidemiology Branch in the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, still holds true, namely  that many of the chemical

“substances that we suspected would cause cancer in animals actually do not. Of course, it is possible that they do cause cancer in humans, but, in fact, our experience has shown us that most of the chemicals we have tested don’t cause cancer.”

If this wasn’t the case, simply breathing in the five hundred volatile chemicals in the aroma of coffee would be deadly.  As would eating carrots and lettuce. And don’t even think of drinking beer or wine.

Now consider what Terence Corcoran of Canada’s Financial Post wrote in his review of  “Slow Death by Rubber Duck”  about what Bonos calls “hard hitting” findings that demand government action:

“When I showed these numbers to Sam Kacew, associate director, Toxicology, at the McLauglin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at University of Ottawa, he called them “junk science.” Keith Solomon, Professor at Guelph University and a fellow at the Academy of Toxicological Sciences at Guelph University, said numbers on the BPA content of Rich Smith’s urine “are totally meaningless in a toxicological sense.”

The moral of the story is: this is how you review an activist book making controversial claims if you don’t have the $350 dollars to pay a reviewer who’s an expert in the subject. A review that’s simply a transcription of a book’s contents is a disservice to readers.

(ps – one other failure to fact check, Bonos says that other governments are moving towards banning BPA spurred on by Canada; the opposite is the case, Canada has been backtracking on the risk (France said its decision to ban was irrational), and Korea has recently joined the EU, Australia and New Zealand and Japan in affirming that there is no risk from BPA in food packaging. I can’t think of any country that is moving towards such a ban.)