Old Longhair's Musings - News

Fight fear with facts

nospam@example.com (Old Longhair) — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:02:40 -0700

Fear is a powerful tool. I wrote about it a while back, but I failed to provide an antidote other than to be aware of the motives and to think critically when faced with an attempt to scare us into unnecessarily giving up our freedoms in exchange for a promise of security and safety.

Time passed, and I have a better suggestion.

Fear is an emotional response - and while often justified, often it is not. When faced with an emotion we want to control, our only options are faith or facts. Faith is often controlled by emotion and it is hard to maintain the faith in the face of fear, so it is not always the best ally in the fight against fear (although it often works). Facts, on the other hand, are not influenced by the emotions and are great as a reality check.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the facts presented by those trying to scare us may not be complete, or even accurate. Partial statistics, or numbers without relevant baselines, or misleading graphics are often used to make things look worse than they are. For example, if I told you that 80 people were killed in city X this week, accompanied by an emotional story about one of them, and followed up by another story on another victim next week, and next - soon you will be under the impression that you, too, are in danger. What if it turned out that city X is one of the largest cities in the world and 80 murders a week means it is the safest large city in the world? The thing is, this second fact is not going to just "turn out" - you would need to discover it for yourself.

And that is the antidote. If something looks scary, look for the facts - besides the scary news story. Thanks to the Internet, research is pretty easy. The governments publish statistics, trustworthy most of the time. Numbers of deaths from each cause are available. You can always compare your chances of being affected by whatever is supposed to scare you against other things that you know are pretty rare, and against other things that you know are fairly common. For example, compare your chances of dying from an unprovoked attack by a dog (pick your breed) against your chances of dying from a fall down the stairs - ideally, before deciding on embarking on an anti-dog or anti-breed campaign in your community. Or look at the real numbers of child injuries or deaths caused by the now-recalled cribs against those same falls down the stairs. In many cases, you will see that the issue trumpeted as the huge killer of adults and children alike is really a non-issue, statistically insignificant although unquestionably tragic in each particular instance.

And then, stop waisting time, effort and emotion on fearing the things which have negligible odds. Lightning strikes, terror attacks, mass murderers, most other front-page news fall into that category. In vast majority of those cases, you (or your loved one) are more likely to intentionally kill yourself than to fall victim to one of those real but extremely unlikely causes of death. Which makes those fears more akin to phobias, irrational and not supported by any logical evidence. We all have enough true phobias (mine is a fear of heights, for example) - no need to add imagined ones to them.

When fearmongering, never, ever include real numbers

nospam@example.com (Old Longhair) — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 09:22:09 -0700

Great article in today's Vancouver Province on the dangers of asbestos and how the WCB leaves those dying of mesothelioma as a result of the long-term exposure to asbestos in the workplace without any support once they are retired. Second installment to follow on Tuesday, apparently.

I have no issues with the direction of the push - in the workplace, there are dangers which are immediate (injuries) and those which may not show up until many years later. While WCB is (arguably) there if you get hurt, it does not support those who get sick many years later, especially after retirement - according to the article, coverage ends after retirement age. I totally agree that coverage should continue, providing those who were exposed to known long-term dangers during their work with the support they need. I also have the greatest sympathy for those who have spent their lives working in dangerous environments and are now hung out to dry by the government - and their families.

However, the tone of the article seems to suggest that the issue is vastly more prevalent than the numbers indicate. Hence the headline - if you want to scare people stiff, never tell them that the issue is actually quite rare.

I have two issues with this article.

First, and most obviously - it gives the worldwide predictions for annual deaths resulting from asbestos exposure - 90,000. While this seems high, it is the global number. For a country like Canada (roughly 33 million) it works out to 495. Again, 495 deaths is horrible if you or your family member is one of them. However, it pales in comparison to most other causes of death - suicides alone will take the lives of 3300 people in Canada in the same period (Statistics Canada: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/health30a-eng.htm). Even homicides, quite rare in our country, beat the asbestos-related number quoted in the article.

Second, in order to make the issue scarier for everyone and not just those who worked with high amounts of asbestos for years, the article quotes the same doctor as saying that he had seen cases where disease occurred after a single exposure to asbestos. No doubt he has. There are also cases of mesothelioma (just under 10%) which are not linked to asbestos exposure at all. But this quote seems to be used to indicate that anyone who has ever been exposed to asbestos (the article mentions pretty much any construction occupation, mechanics - and then includes those doing home renovations on their own home) is in grave danger. Hardly - not only is there no indication that those once-exposed cases are related to that one exposure and not part of the 10%, even with heavy exposure the rate is 495 per 33,000,000 - 1.5 per 100,000 - the standard statistical measure.

There is no question that heavy, long-term exposure to asbestos (or formaldehyde, or any one of a huge number of other substances) is bad for you. There is no question that those who are affected by the exposure they sustained as part of their work should be supported after retirement. But justice is one thing - and fearmongering is another.

Old Longhair

Ban all dogs except poodles!

nospam@example.com (Old Longhair) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:09:58 -0700

Oh, what the heck - ban poodles, too.

Another public and media frenzy: the pit bulls. This time, it is a good story: a dog is kept chained up outside. Then, the owner takes it off the chain and lets it into the house - and the dog bites a child. Quite honestly, any dog that is kept out on a chain is likely to be poorly socialized and unpredictable in unfamiliar environment - but this one just happened to be a pit bull.

Continue reading "Ban all dogs except poodles!"

Gang Wars

nospam@example.com (Old Longhair) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:03:00 -0700

Lately, there has been a lot of media coverage of gang shootings in Vancouver. While much of the violence was one gang getting back an another one for some transgression or another, from time to time an innocent bystander gets hit.

Much noise has been made in the media about how honest citizens are afraid to wak to the store, or sleep in their bed, or whatever else. There has been a well-publicised essay by a young boy about how the gang violence is interfereing with lives of ordinary people. Politicians and police are scrambling to "address" the issue. All we are going to see is a bunch of knee-jerk reactions because they are going about it all wrong.
Continue reading "Gang Wars"

"Less-lethal" weapons - are they really the best option?

nospam@example.com (Old Longhair) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:03:35 -0700

Tasers are getting a lot of coverage these days, following a number of well-publicised deaths following their use. There is no question that being tasered is less likely to kill you than a shot in the head, but is there a safer alternative which would be as effective?
Continue reading ""Less-lethal" weapons - are they really the best option?"