What's New Robert L. Park 30 Aug 2012

WHAT=92S NEW   Robert L Park   Monday, 27 Aug 2012   Washington, DC   1.=20=


1. EPIDEMIOLOGY: WORDS MEAN WHAT THE DICTIONARY SAYS THEY MEAN.
Is epidemiology a science?  Last week's WN said it's not =96 but a lot of=
=20
people disagreed. I got far more mail than I could answer. This is my=20
response.  I=92m a physicist by training, and a troublemaker by inclinati=
on;=20
a lexicographer I am not.  So I consulted a number of dictionaries; not o=
ne=20
classified epidemiology as a science. However, they characterized it as=20=

a "branch of medicine." Does that make epidemiology a science?  I don't=20=

think so, but I doubt if I will ever again say it's not.  The distinction=
 I=20
wanted to make is that science is concerned with the cause-and-effect=20
relationship between physical events.  Epidemiology, by contrast, looks f=
or=20
correlation. That's important too. It guides scientists in the search for=
=20
causality, but to confuse causality with correlation is a serious error i=
n=20
logic. It's also a very common mistake.

2. ZAPPED: WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF THIS COSTLY MISTAKE?=20
For nearly two decades staff writer Paul Brodeur performed a genuine publ=
ic=20
service by informing New Yorker readers of the health hazards of exposure=
=20
to everything from asbestos, to microwave radiation.  Brodeur, however, h=
as=20
no science background and no sense of what the numbers mean; radiation wa=
s=20
radiation, whether it was power-line fields or microwaves. In 1979, when=20=

epidemiologist Nancy Wertheimer charged that 60 Hz power-line radiation=20=
=20
is responsible for childhood leukemia, Brodeur wrote a series of supporti=
ve=20
articles in the New Yorker about the dangers of power-line fields. They=20=

were gathered together in books with lurid titles like Currents of Death.=
=20=20
Brodeur was not there in 1996 when the National Academy of Sciences=20
released the results of an exhaustive three-year review of the possible=20=

health effects of exposure to residential electromagnetic fields. He had=20=

been fired by the New Yorker four years earlier. The unanimous conclusion=
=20
of the NAS panel was that "the current body of evidence does not show tha=
t=20
exposure to these fields presents a human health hazard."  Why had it tak=
en=20
so long, and why had there been no comment from epidemiologists? Perhaps=20=

the scientific community should use more direct language in stating=20
conclusions that are so obviously wrong and so dangerous.

3. SCIENCE: WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO DIFFERENTLY?=20
We need to explain the basics of the electromagnetic spectrum to every=20=

literate person. It shouldn't be that difficult. Children are transfixed =
by=20
the sight of a prism breaking sunlight into a rainbow. They need to=20
understand that the visible rainbow is only a tiny sliver out of a spectr=
um=20
of electromagnetic radiation that ranges from harmless radio waves to=20
deadly gamma rays. The same spectrum should hang on the walls of every=20=

classroom and appear in every news article that talks about cell-phone=20=

radiation,skin cancer, and x-rays.

4. POLITICS: WE'LL BE BACK TO CURRENT EVENTS IN THE NEXT ISSUE.

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.
---
Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org
What's New is moving to a different listserver and our
subscription process has changed. To change your subscription
status please visit this link:
http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbobparks-whatsnew&A=3D1