{"id":483,"date":"2012-06-13T10:06:31","date_gmt":"2012-06-13T10:06:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rulesofreason.wordpress.com\/?p=483"},"modified":"2012-06-13T10:06:31","modified_gmt":"2012-06-13T10:06:31","slug":"diesel-cancer-and-how-not-to-report-about-risk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=483","title":{"rendered":"Diesel, cancer and how (not) to report about risk"},"content":{"rendered":"

The BBC reports<\/a> that diesel exhausts have been declared as causing cancer. That could very well be, but the way the results\u00a0are reported leaves a lot to be desired. First, look at this bit:<\/p>\n

Dr Kurt Straif, also from IARC, said: “For most of the carcinogens when there is high exposure the risk is higher, when there is lower exposure the risk is lower.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hmm, so lower exposure to diesel lowers the risk of cancer?! Lower than what? Than no exposure at all? I presume that this is just an awkward way of saying that the risk increases with the amount of exposure. But then at what point does the risk become ‘significantly’ higher than\u00a0the risk if not being exposed? When you pass behind a diesel car once a day? When you work behind fuming diesel engines all day long? When you get a single overdose once in your life? Without answers to all these questions, the information that some<\/em> level of exposure to diesel is related to an increase in cancer risk is pretty useless to me.<\/p>\n

What is also missing is a crucial comparison to petrol. How does the risk of exposure to diesel compare to the risk of exposure to petrol? Is petrol carcinogenic as well, to a smaller degree, or not at all?\u00a0Part of the scientific evidence for the carcinogenic effects of diesel is apparently based on observing truck drivers. No details or links to this research are provided, but I wonder how these truck drivers have been isolated from the effects of petrol fumes and exposed to the effects of diesel fumes only…<\/p>\n

The\u00a0most disturbing\u00a0part comes\u00a0with the statement that\u00a0‘Diesel exhausts are now in the same group<\/a> as carcinogens ranging from wood chippings to plutonium and sunlight to alcohol.’\u00a0Plutonium and alcohol!\u00a0<\/em>So is inhaling diesel fumes\u00a0carcinogenic to the same extent that drinking a glass of wine once a week is, or to the extent that ingesting plutonium is?<\/p>\n

I certainly understand the scientific rationale to classify diesel fumes as carcinogenic. What I don’t understand the journalistic rationale to report this without the necessary context to make the information understandable and useful for the ordinary readers. After all, shall we all sell our diesel cars now? I mean, diesel fumes do cause cancer, as it says in the title, no?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The BBC reports that diesel exhausts have been declared as causing cancer. That could very well be, but the way the results\u00a0are reported leaves a lot to be desired. First, look at this bit: Dr Kurt Straif, also from IARC, said: “For most of the carcinogens when there is high exposure the risk is higher, when there is lower exposure the risk is lower.” Hmm, so lower exposure to diesel lowers the risk of cancer?! Lower than what? Than no exposure at all? I presume that this is just an awkward way of saying that the risk increases with the amount of exposure. But then at what point does the risk become ‘significantly’ higher than\u00a0the risk if not being exposed? When you pass behind a diesel car once a day? When you work behind fuming diesel engines all day long? When you get a single overdose once in your life? Without answers to all these questions, the information that some level of exposure to diesel is related to an increase in cancer risk is pretty useless to me. What is also missing is a crucial comparison to petrol. How does the risk of exposure to diesel compare to the risk of exposure to petrol? Is petrol carcinogenic as well, to a smaller degree, or not at all?\u00a0Part of the scientific evidence for the carcinogenic effects of diesel is apparently based on observing truck drivers. No details or links to this research are provided, but I wonder how these truck drivers…<\/p>\n

Continue readingDiesel, cancer and how (not) to report about risk<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[15],"tags":[114,181,182,230,365],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7g3hj-7N","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":158,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=158","url_meta":{"origin":483,"position":0},"title":"Foreign media exposure and democratization","date":"November 9, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"This paper [ungated; longer version] has it all: a \u00a0design based on a 'natural experiment', recently declassified East German public opinion surveys, and a counterintuitive result - exposure to West German TV\u00a0increased support for the the East German communist regime. Here is the abstract: In this case study of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Natural experiments"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":664,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=664","url_meta":{"origin":483,"position":1},"title":"Antifragility goes to Davos","date":"February 7, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"A sample of statements made at the 2013 meeting of the world leaders in\u00a0Davos\u00a0(as reported by\u00a0Felix Salmon): \u201c[We have] removed the tail risk from the euro\u201d Mario Draghi (European Central Bank) 'There is no tail risk anymore' Oli Rehn (European Commission) \u201cIn Europe, the tail risk has been moved off\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "economic policy"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":206,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=206","url_meta":{"origin":483,"position":2},"title":"Is unit homogeneity a sufficient assumption for causal inference?","date":"December 6, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Is unit homogeneity a sufficient condition (assumption) for causal inference from observational data? Re-reading King, Keohane and Verba's bible on research design\u00a0[lovingly known to all exposed\u00a0as KKV] I\u00a0think\u00a0they regard unit homogeneity and conditional independence as alternative assumptions for causal inference. For example: \"we provide an overview here of what is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Causality"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":146,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=146","url_meta":{"origin":483,"position":3},"title":"Hyperlinks","date":"November 12, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Alcohol linked to breast cancer (hm, do they sufficiently control for confounding variables?) Scientists more likely to have autistic kids? Probably not, but worth checking the entire Nature issue devoted to autism Ben Goldacre summarizes his experience \u00a0writing on bad science Fatty foods as addictive as cocaine \u00a0(no, that doesn't\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hyperlinks"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":837,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=837","url_meta":{"origin":483,"position":4},"title":"Immigration from Central and Eastern Europe fuels support for Eurosceptic parties in the UK","date":"May 4, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Combining political, demographic and economic data for the local level in the UK, we find that the presence of immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is related to higher voting shares cast for parties with Eurosceptic positions at the 2014 elections for the European Parliament. Evidence across Europe supports\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "EU governance"","img":{"alt_text":"Data source: Standard Eurobarometer (59 to 82).","src":"http:\/\/eurosearch.files.wordpress.com\/2015\/05\/figure-1-importance-of-immigration.png?w=350&h=200&crop=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":724,"url":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/?p=724","url_meta":{"origin":483,"position":5},"title":"The failure of political science","date":"March 25, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Last week the American Senate\u00a0supported with a clear bi-partisan majority a decision to stop funding for political science research from the National Science Foundation. Of all disciplines, only political science has been singled out for the cuts and the money will go for cancer research instead. The decision is obviously\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Science politicisation"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/483"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=483"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/483\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/re-design.dimiter.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}