Chris Frost
04-04-2008, 15:51
It seems like a week doesn't go by without some piece of contradictory evidence emerging that a food or drink once thought good is now considered bad. The latest scare is water. See article here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/04/04/noindex/nhealth103.xml)
If we set aside the pro's and con's of each food/drink related article for a moment, what do we all think about the process that brings these new "discoveries' to light? Valuable public information, or poorly explained scare mongering on the part of the medical researchers and journalists?
I'm sure you're all aware of the way tabloids will inflate the seriousness of any scientific figures.
A headline might read..."Risk of cancer doubled from breathing";)...when in actual fact the risk may have risen from 0.0001% to 0.0002%; hardly a significant increase.
Yes, I know it is significant if you are personally affected, and I think we are all probably aware that editors will do whatever they can to sell papers. But are we happy that stories like this get so much prominence when other more worthy issues are relegated or ignored completely?
If we set aside the pro's and con's of each food/drink related article for a moment, what do we all think about the process that brings these new "discoveries' to light? Valuable public information, or poorly explained scare mongering on the part of the medical researchers and journalists?
I'm sure you're all aware of the way tabloids will inflate the seriousness of any scientific figures.
A headline might read..."Risk of cancer doubled from breathing";)...when in actual fact the risk may have risen from 0.0001% to 0.0002%; hardly a significant increase.
Yes, I know it is significant if you are personally affected, and I think we are all probably aware that editors will do whatever they can to sell papers. But are we happy that stories like this get so much prominence when other more worthy issues are relegated or ignored completely?