 | | | | |  | An antidote to panics based on dodgy statistics and dubious arguments.
Edited by Rob Lyons. |  | | |  |  |
|
| | | 24 October 2003 | Sweet truth
Panic: Eating a lot of sugary foods during pregnancy could lead to an increased risk of birth defects, according to research to be published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN). Mothers who ate a lot of foods with a high glycemic index, which cause a rapid rise in blood sugar followed by a sharp fall, apparently doubled their risk of having children with neural tube defects, such as spina bifida. Obese mothers were found to be four times more likely to have children with such problems.
Don't panic: By focusing on the 'double' or 'quadruple' supposed relative risk of birth defect, the headlines disguise the fact that the absolute risk of birth defect remains very small. Department of Health figures suggest that there are about 800 cases of neural tube defects in England and Wales each year - about one case for every 1000 live births. Most of these cases are detected by routine antenatal screening. The majority of such pregnancies end in termination, so that very few children are born with these conditions.
Studies like the one published in AJCN should never be taken at face value. For example, Andrew Russell of the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus told BBC News: 'The idea that a sugar surge in the maternal blood could cause spina bifida, while not impossible, would need quite a lot of corroboration because there are so many other things that feed into the metabolic process which controls development and closure of the spinal column.' The safest thing that any parent-to-be can do in relation to reports like these is generally to ignore them.
Whatever the merits of the science, the effect of such news reports is further to increase the nine-month guilt-trip that is pregnancy today. Mothers are already lectured about giving up cigarettes, alcohol and caffeine. Now, it is suggested, they should avoid eating a range of foods from white bread to cooked carrots - despite the fact that the medical basis for most of this advice is shaky at best.
Andrew Russell says: 'I would not feel at all comfortable about telling a mother that because she ate a cream bun in the early stages of pregnancy she was responsible for her child's lifelong disability.' Exactly. The stress of such guilt-trips is the last thing an expectant mother needs.
Read: |  | Sugary foods 'birth defect risk', | | BBC News, 24 November 2003 | | Folic acid and the prevention of spina bifida: new campaign plans, | | UK Department of Health, 13 July 2003 |
| |
| | | 7 November 2003 | Floating fears
Panic: 'US Toxic "ghost fleet" not wanted in the UK', says Greenpeace, in response to the imminent arrival of two rusting, World War II-vintage US ships into the port of Hartlepool, in north-east England. The ships, the first two of 15, are due to be recycled by Able UK. However, a High Court ruling on 5 November 2003 will prevent any work being done on them for a month, and the UK Environment Agency has called on the US authorities to take the ships back. The ships contain hazardous chemicals including asbestos and PCBs, which campaigners like Surfers Against Sewage claim cause birth defects.
Don't panic: There appears to be nothing special about these ships apart from their age. Able UK say that they have regularly dismantled ships and platforms that have been much worse, including the Brent Spar platform. The quantities of hazardous substances on board are not remarkable either, and are unlikely to pose a health hazard in the form they are in on these ships. There is only sufficient fuel oil in the vessels to power the bilge pumps - they rely on tugs to move - so there is no chance of a big oil spillage. Any chemicals that can't be reused would be buried in purpose-built landfill.
Why all the fuss? What the company proposes to do with the ships is exactly what campaigners want - safe disposal with as much recycling of materials as possible. Greenpeace even states that 'the actual conditions under which the ships will be scrapped are far more advanced than those which are employed on the majority of ships.'
The main complaint appears to be about the danger of ships in the future breaking up and sinking in the Atlantic. But this in fact would seem to be the safest and simplest way of disposing of them. The benefits of deep-sea disposal were clearly demonstrated by the research done in relation to Brent Spar, but ignored in the emotive backlash against Shell's plan to sink the platform.
There are thousands of other World War II ships already down there (2753 Allied ships and 783 U-boats were sunk in the 'Battle of the Atlantic'), with no apparent harm resulting. Any leakages would be so heavily diluted by the volume of water as to be insignificant and natural events like deep-sea vents actually introduce far more heavy metals into the ocean than could ever arise from sunken ships and platforms. Serious accidents during the recycling process might be unlikely but why make workers handle toxic chemicals when there is no need? The impact on marine life would not necessarily be negative, either. Many of the weird and wonderful animals and organisms that live in the deep ocean would actually benefit from the presence of a rusting wreck.
The reaction to the 'ghost ships' is out of all proportion to any harm that they could cause, but they would not even by heading for these shores if a more rational approach to disposal hadn't already been ruled out in the wake of Brent Spar.
Read: | | US Toxic 'ghost fleet' not wanted in the UK, | | Greenpeace | | The Brent Spar saga, | | Environmental Health Perspectives 103 | | The Battle of the Atlantic | | Greenfield History |
| |
| | | 4 November 2003 | Flights of fancy
Panic: 'Long-haul flights raise DVT risk', reports CNN, announcing a new Australian-government funded study into the association between long-haul flying and deep-vein thrombosis (DVT). DVT first shot to public attention after 28-year-old UK resident Emma Christoffersen collapsed and died following a 20-hour flight from Australia in October 2000. Since then, articles announcing the risks of flying have become commonplace - and DVT victims in Australia and Britain have launched legal action against airlines.
Don't panic: What the Australian government's study actually shows is that flying causes a 'tiny' increased risk of DVT. The study surveyed people admitted to a hospital in Western Australia with DVT - and found that travelling one long-haul flight a year was associated with a 12 per cent increase in the chance of developing DVT. Australia's chief medical officer reported that, for the average middle-aged traveller, this would mean that 'DVT would occur only once in 40,000 flights, with a death about once in two million flights'. According to reports, the risk would be smaller for younger people, and larger for high-risk groups such as heart patients or women on the Pill. That the Pill is cited as a risk-factor might worry many women - but the increased risk is only three to four times normal levels, corresponding to one possible case of DVT per 10,000 flights.
As an island a long way from everywhere else, the Australian government has a certain interest in promoting long-haul flights. But these results are consistent with other studies - in 2000, a House of Lords Select Committee report concluded that the increased risk of DVT from flying was 'exceedingly small' for the majority of passengers. When it comes to DVT, it's better to look at the facts, not the headlines.
Read: | | Long-haul flights raise DVT risk, | | CNN.com, 4 November 2003 | | Study reveals 'tiny' flying risk, | | BBC News, 3 November 2003 |
| |
| | | 30 October 2003 | Halloween horrors
Panic: As this year's Halloween festivities get underway, traditional spooky scares have been replaced by health and safety scares. UK police have issued posters for people to put in their windows, asking trick-or-treaters not to call, while some Co-Op shops are refusing to sell flour and eggs to suspicious-looking youngsters in the days before Halloween. Thames Valley police have urged parents to prevent their children from trick-or-treating, or else to accompany them.
Police in Taunton are planning a major crackdown on Halloween 'troublemakers'; schools and libraries in Wrexham have decided not to acknowledge Halloween at all; and parents in Jersey have been warned that they may face prosecution if their kids cause intimidation or damage while trick-or-treating. The case of 12-year-old Welsh schoolgirl Elise Edwards - who recently sustained a broken hip after being attacked by two people in Halloween costumes - has added to the Halloween horrors.
The Mirror says Halloween is 'an excuse for institutionalised begging from hairy-armed thugs'. According to the Guardian, 'in the USA, especially since 11 September, Halloween's popularity has waned, because of fears of razor blades concealed in apples and candy laced with anthrax'. America has its own share of Halloween health scares. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has sent out a report proposing that people use specially designed cutters to carve pumpkins, instead of dangerous knives. And the Halloween Safety Guide website contains so many safety tips - for parents, kids and even pets - that it's difficult to see how anyone would have time left to have some fun.
Don't panic: Of course, not everyone enjoys Halloween - and not everyone feels public-spirited toward trick-or-treating children. But surely the best way to guarantee that children play pranks on you is to stick up a notice asking them not to. Much of the fear over Halloween is actually a generalised mistrust of other people, and fear at the idea that children might wander around unsupervised at night time, encountering strangers.
Even if there are a few nuisance troublemakers during this festive season, common sense and good humour are far more effective at dealing with them than enlisting parents, supermarkets and the authorities in doomed, pre-emptive attempts to clamp down on anything spontaneous and fun.
Read: | | Halloween Safety Guide | | Halloween egg sales clampdown, | | BBC News, 24 October 2003 | | Tricks, but no treat, | | Guardian, 24 October 2003 | | Paint a pumpkin, spare a hand, | | New York Times, 28 October 2003 |
| |
| | | 28 October 2003 | Turning the heat on parents
Panic: 'Overheating puts babies at risk', says BBC News, reporting a new survey by the Foundation for the Study of Infant Death (FSID). The survey suggests that 56 per cent of parents do not know the proper room temperature for their baby and only a third of families have a thermometer in the room where their baby sleeps. According to FSID director Joyce Epstein: 'Babies who get too hot are at an increased risk of cot death. Our message to parents is: look at and touch your baby to see if they are too warm, and keep an eye on the room temperature.'
Don't panic: 'Cot death' is defined by FSID as 'sudden and unexpected death of a baby for no obvious reason' and amounts to about one death in every 2000 live births, according to figures on the FSID website. Without knowing why an infant has died, it is impossible to know to what degree any particular factor, like temperature, was responsible. The most that can be said is that there seem to be slightly fewer deaths in relatively cool homes than in warmer homes. But correlation does not mean causation; and the results of the studies that have been done may turn out to be meaningless because they cover such a small number of cases.
However, parents reading about studies like this would not get the impression that the advice given is based on such limited results. Instead, the report implies that a particular temperature range is always best and variation beyond that range is always dangerous. The fact is that 1,999 children out of every 2000 do not suffer cot death despite the stated ignorance of parents as to the 'correct' temperature for baby's room. This tends to suggest that fine-tuning the thermostat will make very little difference to whether an infant dies or not.
The volume of advice that parents receive about their children seems to be rising at a time when infant death has become extremely rare. FSID, for example, makes recommendations on sleeping position, smoking, temperature, and sleeping with parents (in the same room is good, but not in the same bed) - all to avoid cot death, and all on the same feeble scientific basis. The effect of such advice is negligible as regards children's health, but it is does increase the anxiety of parents and can lead to overwhelming but misplaced guilt for those who tragically suffer the loss of a child.
Read: | | Over-heating puts babies at risk, | | BBC News, 27 October 2003 | | Foundation for the Study of Infant Death |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is spiked?
spiked is an online publication with the modest ambition of making history as well as reporting it. spiked stands for liberty, enlightenment, experimentation and excellence.
Read on...
|
| |
|
|
