Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How to Read Stories about Garbage “Science” Studies
If you were on the Internet yesterday, you likely saw this story on various mainstream media platforms:
When you see a ridiculous story like this, a how to guide to reading it. 1/ https://t.co/nGPR59fJyF
— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) May 17, 2019
The study claims a lot of gross stuff, claiming that Americans use swimming pools instead of a shower and that 40% of Americans pee in the pool. The whole thing sounded strange, which is what led me to read the CBS story in detail. In it I saw the following paragraph:
Sachs Media Group… A poll run by a media group? That’s… strange. So I went over to Google and looked up what they do. Turns out they’re a PR agency, and one of their clients is… Big Chlorine (I didn’t know such a thing existed). After several individuals, myself included, pointed out the glaring conflict of interest of a media group representing the chlorine industry running a “study” on the cleanliness of pools (and therefore, the importance of chlorine), CBS updated its story, and it now reads:
The survey was conducted by Sachs Media Group, a PR firm working on behalf of the Water Quality & Health Council, a group of advisors to the chlorine industry trade association. On its website, Sachs Media Group says it aims to “Improve chlorine’s brand nationwide to pre-empt legislators and regulators from developing policy that promotes chlorine alternatives.”
This is what it takes for journalists to make an attempt to be responsible while reporting about science, they have to be called out on their laziness in public, repeatedly.
The proliferation of reporting about junk science is rampant, and it undermines trust in science and the media alike, in addition to breeding scientific illiteracy among Americans.
In her new book on the data behind parenting choices, Professor Emily Oster writes about the issue,
We see, again and again, aggressive headlines that often overstate the claims of the (often not very good) articles they report on.
Why is this?
One reason is that people seem to love a scary or shocking narrative. ‘Report: Formula-Fed Children More Likely to Drop Out of High School’ is a more clickable headline than ‘Large, Well-Designed Study Shows Small Impacts of Breastfeeding on Diarrheal Diseases.’ This desire for shock and awe interacts poorly with most people’s lack of statistical knowledge. There is no pressure on the media to focus on reporting the ‘best’ studies, since people have a hard time separating the good studies from less-good ones. Media reports can get away with saying ‘A new study shows…’ without saying ‘A new study, with very likely biased results, shows…’ And other than the few of us who get our dander up on Twitter, people are mostly none the wiser.
Yesterday brought news of another egregious scientific blunder exposed as well,
And then, that feeling when, 404 days after submitting your concerns about said study, it gets retracted. https://t.co/aaP6xODw8E
Who can quantify how far that misinfo spread in the >year it took for retraction?
People deserve accurate info about their contraceptive options. https://t.co/o2wO2JSmze
— Chelsea Polis (@cbpolis) May 14, 2019
BuzzFeed reports on the story,
The company claimed that the thermometer successfully predicted fertility in 99.4% of its customers. But the study that it was based on was pulled for selectively using data that made it look good — and undercounting possible unintended pregnancies.
In this case, the study, and the reporting filed later didn’t just mislead people but may have drastically altered the lives of families trying to get pregnant, or trying not to get pregnant.
We hear a great deal about the dangers of the eroding trust in science and the media. If both entities care about repairing it, raising their standards on science reporting would be a great place to start.
Published in Journalism
Science/statistics lessons from the news media? Our news media?
They should have gone with the old, reliable “source who would only comment on conditions of anonymity.” Those stories are impossible to find fault with.
I’m confused. What part of the study’s findings do you dispute?
Personally, I think the 40% number seems low.
Note to self: Don’t invite Misthiocracy to the pool party.
Or hose him down when he shows up.
Even science journalists are still journalists. If they were smart, they would be doing science, not writing about it. I roll my eyes at many “science” stories. Sometimes they have to have a political statement in them, even when it has nothing to do with the science. Certainly there are the promotional ones. “Vaccines cause autism” was a scam by a doctor with an alternative to vaccines that he was trying to sell.
We’d do that anyway.
I never gave it much thought when I used to swim in the city pool, but my guess is that almost all kids beneath the age of 13 pee in the pool. So if you swim in a public pool, you are swimming through a urine/water/chlorine mix.
Knowing that, I’m not sure I could enjoy my swim these days.
And when you do, be sure to use the guest hosing-down product chosen by Washington’s leading pool party hostesses–100% natural Chlorine! Studies show that Chlorine kills 99.4% of the germs on most pool party guests.
Ask your pool doctor to find out if 100% natural Chlorine is right for you. May cause pain or death in sensitive individuals. No guest hosing-down product can prevent pool peeing. When using any 100% natural Chlorine guest hosing product, it is recommended that you provide an inflatable kiddie pool for the first hour of your party, and then open the grown-up pool. Hosing down guests who are pregnant, who suspect they might be pregnant, or who have wrapped blankets around themselves and then drenched themselves with Windex (R) or other ammonia-containing cleaners is not recommended.
This message brought to you by the folks at the Pool Party Guest Hosing-Down Product Council.
Beyond anything to do with Global Warming / Climate Change, I reserve my most exaggerated eye rolls for the semi-annual breaking news about the discovery of another “Earth-like” planet. Almost every one is worth a face-palm or two…or three…or…
Just make sure to follow Russell Roberts @EconTalker & listen to his podcast every Monday.
you’ll be cured of Garbage science bias really quickly.
Fun fact: A strong chlorine smell in the air is proof that people are peeing in the pool. That smell is produced by the urea reacting with the chlorine. If there’s no urea, there’s no smell.
This is all the result of Big Government. Hardly anyone notices that Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex” speech also warned about Big (government funded) Science.
Why is Big Government a problem in the pursuit of scientific truth? Because Government can make or break an industry — like, for example, the coal industry (see Barack Obama administration). Big Chlorine needs Big Government on its side. If government were less consequential, people could go about their self- or industry-interests without all the Big Lies.
Why does Big Media repeat the Big Lies unquestioned? My guess is a combination of maleducation and ideological conformity. They make themselves the Enemy of the People.
Also to keep in mind: Chlorine isn’t added to a pool to neutralize the pee. Chlorine is added to a pool to kill bacteria, and there is no bacteria in pee. Pee is (virtually) sterile. The pee in a pool is not toxic, and neither is the chlorine for that matter, but the chemical produced when pee reacts with chlorine can be. It’s that chemical that causes your eyes to get red and itchy, for example, and it can also trigger asthma. This is why you shouldn’t pee in a chlorinated pool.
Don’t do much laundry, do you?
I think we just found a new target for the left! Get on it, hounds of equality!!!
Pee isn’t the only source of urea. It’s also in sweat (and poo). The strong chlorine smell from your laundry is from the chlorine reacting with the urea in the sweat in your clothes (and the fecal material left behind in your unmentionables).
I’ve never understood why opponents of salt don’t call it a campaign against chlorine, since table salt is Sodium Chloride.
Misthiocracy –
Bleach is unstable and gradually releases chlorine. Bleach in the bottle, along with bleaching powder / chlorine carriers, smell like chlorine. Acid promotes this release – in fact, that is how I would prepare chlorine water for chemical demonstrations. So an acidic low pH pool might smell of chlorine.
Urea can be chlorinated – the reaction was known as early as the 1910s. However, this product is not listed as a hazardous substance. Urea chlorination reduces the free chlorine available to kill bacteria. It is only after it is oxidized to various volatile chloramines that it can become an irritant.
Basically, your statement is over-broad.
Embrace the power of “and”.
I don’t believe it for one second. It has to be more like 95% . . .
….Now, that’s funny.
Yep. We always told our kids, if you really can’t hold it till you get to a non-chlorinated pool, just go into the nearest restroom, and use the toilet. Nobody will even notice, and anyway, everyone has been in that situation at some point in their lives.
The worst smells in laundry I’ve ever had to deal with were from Mr. She’s synthetic undershirts (UnderArmour, and similar). He’s always been interested in “better-wicking” and “less-sweaty” underwear due to his active lifestyle (hiking, camping, cross-country skiing, ice-climbing, etc), and he’s a bit of a gadget freak, so whatever the newest thing was, he was up to try it.
But the synthetic stuff smells foul when it sits in the laundry basket for more than five minutes. Give me good old cotton and wool, every day.
Chlorine serves 2 purposes. Yes it kills bacteria but it also oxydizes organic wastes. When you smell chlorine, it means the chlorine has done its job but has converted to chloramines in the process, which gives the odor. Then the pool needs to be shocked to restore the form and eliminate the odor. Pool chemistry is pretty complicated but most public and commercial pools have automated controllers that measure and dose chemicals properly. That is why most pools are nice to swim in and safe, despite pee, sweat, etc. Hot tubs are a more intense environment but the same principles apply.
So go ahead and enjoy. And yes, I am in the pool supply business.
Therefore you clearly cannot be trusted to provide non-biased data.
;-)
I can’t believe that 40% of Americans even have access to pools.
I am confused.
When we are at a pool and we “smell chlorine”, are we mostly smelling
Each of these statements claims to be authoritative, but if I am interpreting them correctly, they seem to disagree:
So, Cl2, not chloramines?
So, chloramines, not Cl2?
Yeah, I defy anyone to leave an opened bottle of Clorox in their enclosed laundry room and enter it an hour later without a respirator unit. Chlorine smells, dudes. It doesn’t need to interact with nuthin’. Now, maybe when it’s diluted in a swimming pool it doesn’t smell as noticeably until it interacts with urine or other bodily excretions, but, heck, I can even smell it in unfiltered tap water! Are you guys trying to gaslight us?? /get it? *gas*light?
“We see, again and again, aggressive headlines that often overstate the claims of the (often not very good) articles they report on.”
Also, a high % of headline writers appear to be extraordinarily clueless, even by journalist standards. See for example the headline and picture for this article about the F-82 “jet fighter”.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-f-82-fighter-strange-looking-jet-went-war-korea-46037