3 ms·

This is why I flag almost all the health-related stories I see on the HN front page, especially those about supposed toxicity. Much of what passes for medical n

by ern 12y ago

This is why I flag almost all the health-related stories I see on the HN front page, especially those about supposed toxicity. Much of what passes for medical news nowadays seems calculated to breed neuroses, especially in parents.

vixen99 12y ago
Which reminds me of the old chestnut - being paranoic doesn't mean everybody is not watching you. How about assessing reports on their merits if such exist instead of making generalizations about 'almost all the health-related stories'? A neurosis is an unreasonable response to perceived reality which may indeed, as you say, not be what it appears. Solutions for neuroses must lie with the neurotic not with the stimuli held to be 'responsible' for them.
- ern 12y ago
  From what I've noticed as an outsider, it is very difficult for a layperson, especially one untrained in statistical methods, without full journal subscriptions, or without an understanding of the politics involved in grant applications, to be able to judge the accuracy of reports, which are often based, it seems on press releases (not even abstracts). In 2013, a story made the front page of HN about high lead levels in imported rice (covered by some credible sources). For a few weeks, as a precaution, I avoided giving my children rice to eat (and I'm sure I wasn't the only one) and getting into a fairly heated argument with my spouse about it, who thought I was crazy. It later transpired that the entire story was based on miscalibrated equipment. Till today, there are news sources that haven't corrected the story (Google "lead in rice"). This was an extreme example, but I don't doubt that a lot of health stories suffer from real flaws, but are tougher to debunk. Science is important, but science reporting (especially medical reporting) seems awful. No parent wants their child to be harmed, indeed, I've read comments on HN where people say they give their kids glass bottles because of the putative risks of phthalates. While I don't blame them for being careful, imagine what happens when the glass bottles shatter? It is very tempting for parents to panic and to "parent by headline", and it is obviously profitable for researchers and their institutions to generate maximal alarm. However, HN is my primary source of tech news, and I would prefer it if it wasn't clogged with possibly dubious health stories which perpetuate this cycle.
  - semi-extrinsic 12y ago
    With all the fuss about phalates and BPA as you mention, I don't get why UV-hardened polyethylene isn't much more widely used? Anyone have an explanation?
  - mcmancini 12y ago
    > Science is important, but science reporting (especially medical reporting) seems awful. I don't think it's limited to science reporting. The more I learn, the easier is is to see the numerous errors made by journalists across all areas. Take Vox, it's an older link but they have been criticized for poor accuracy in reporting (and failing to prominently note corrections).[1] The Royal Society has it right with their motto, nullius in verba: the news media, much like Wikipedia, is not a reliable source for facts. [1]: http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-totally-fucked-up-a-story-1673835447 http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-totally-fucked...
- cubano 12y ago
  Which reminds me of the old chestnut - being paranoic doesn't mean everybody is not watching you... Yes, and its corollary and my personal favorite... I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

by ern 12y ago

vixen99 12y ago

Which reminds me of the old chestnut - being paranoic doesn't mean everybody is not watching you. How about assessing reports on their merits if such exist instead of making generalizations about 'almost all the health-related stories'? A neurosis is an unreasonable response to perceived reality which may indeed, as you say, not be what it appears. Solutions for neuroses must lie with the neurotic not with the stimuli held to be 'responsible' for them.

ern 12y ago
From what I've noticed as an outsider, it is very difficult for a layperson, especially one untrained in statistical methods, without full journal subscriptions, or without an understanding of the politics involved in grant applications, to be able to judge the accuracy of reports, which are often based, it seems on press releases (not even abstracts). In 2013, a story made the front page of HN about high lead levels in imported rice (covered by some credible sources). For a few weeks, as a precaution, I avoided giving my children rice to eat (and I'm sure I wasn't the only one) and getting into a fairly heated argument with my spouse about it, who thought I was crazy. It later transpired that the entire story was based on miscalibrated equipment. Till today, there are news sources that haven't corrected the story (Google "lead in rice"). This was an extreme example, but I don't doubt that a lot of health stories suffer from real flaws, but are tougher to debunk. Science is important, but science reporting (especially medical reporting) seems awful. No parent wants their child to be harmed, indeed, I've read comments on HN where people say they give their kids glass bottles because of the putative risks of phthalates. While I don't blame them for being careful, imagine what happens when the glass bottles shatter? It is very tempting for parents to panic and to "parent by headline", and it is obviously profitable for researchers and their institutions to generate maximal alarm. However, HN is my primary source of tech news, and I would prefer it if it wasn't clogged with possibly dubious health stories which perpetuate this cycle.
- semi-extrinsic 12y ago
  With all the fuss about phalates and BPA as you mention, I don't get why UV-hardened polyethylene isn't much more widely used? Anyone have an explanation?
- mcmancini 12y ago
  > Science is important, but science reporting (especially medical reporting) seems awful. I don't think it's limited to science reporting. The more I learn, the easier is is to see the numerous errors made by journalists across all areas. Take Vox, it's an older link but they have been criticized for poor accuracy in reporting (and failing to prominently note corrections).[1] The Royal Society has it right with their motto, nullius in verba: the news media, much like Wikipedia, is not a reliable source for facts. [1]: http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-totally-fucked-up-a-story-1673835447 http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-totally-fucked...
cubano 12y ago
Which reminds me of the old chestnut - being paranoic doesn't mean everybody is not watching you... Yes, and its corollary and my personal favorite... I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?