About

Columbia University Press Pinterest

Twitter

Facebook

CUP Web site

RSS Feed

New Books

Author Interviews

Author Events

Keep track of new CUP book releases:
e-newsletters

For media inquiries, please contact our
publicity department

CUP Authors Blogs and Sites

American Society of Magazine Editors

Leonard Cassuto

Mike Chasar / Poetry and Popular Culture

Erica Chenoweth / "Rational Insurgent"

Juan Cole

Jenny Davidson / "Light Reading"

Faisal Devji

William Duggan

James Fleming / Atmosphere: Air, Weather, and Climate History Blog

David Harvey

Paul Harvey / "Religion in American History"

Bruce Hoffman

Alexander Huang

David K. Hurst / The New Ecology of Leadership

Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh

Geoffrey Kabat / "Hyping Health Risks"

Grzegorz W. Kolodko / "Truth, Errors, and Lies"

Jerelle Kraus

Julia Kristeva

Michael LaSala / Gay and Lesbian Well-Being (Psychology Today)

David Leibow / The College Shrink

Marc Lynch / "Abu Aardvark"

S. J. Marshall

Michael Mauboussin

Noelle McAfee

The Measure of America

Philip Napoli / Audience Evolution

Paul Offit

Frederick Douglass Opie / Food as a Lens

Jeffrey Perry

Mari Ruti / The Juicy Bits

Marian Ronan

Michael Sledge

Jacqueline Stevens / States without Nations

Ted Striphas / The Late Age of Print

Charles Strozier / 9/11 after Ten Years

Hervé This

Alan Wallace

James Igoe Walsh / Back Channels

Xiaoming Wang

Santiago Zabala

Press Blogs

AAUP

University of Akron

University of Alberta

American Management Association

Baylor University

Beacon Broadside

University of California

Cambridge University Press

University of Chicago

Cork University

Duke University

University of Florida

Fordham University Press

Georgetown University

University of Georgia

Harvard University

Harvard Educational Publishing Group

University of Hawaii

Hyperbole Books

University of Illinois

Island Press

Indiana University

Johns Hopkins University

University of Kentucky

Louisiana State University

McGill-Queens University Press

Mercer University

University of Michigan

University of Minnesota

Minnesota Historical Society

University of Mississippi

University of Missouri

MIT

University of Nebraska

University Press of New England

University of North Carolina

University Press of North Georgia

NYU / From the Square

University of Oklahoma

Oregon State University

University of Ottawa

Oxford University

Penn State University

University of Pennsylvania

Princeton University

Stanford University

University of Sydney

University of Syracuse

Temple University

University of Texas

Texas A&M University

University of Toronto

University of Virginia

Wilfrid Laurier University

Yale University

December 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Interview with Geoffrey Kabat, author of Hyping Health Risks

Geoffrey KabatThe following are excerpts from a recent interview with Geoffrey Kabat, author of Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology that appeared in the Epidemiology Monitor. The November issue was devoted to Kabat’s work and the issues raised in his book.

EpiMonitor: Can you say more about your personal and professional motivations for writing this book? Clearly, hazards are being manufactured all around us. You are presumably like all other epidemiologists in sharing a set of scientific values and standards, but others have not written such books.

Kabat: In the early 1990s I noticed that certain issues in epidemiology seemed to be distorted or exaggerated and that the public was being given the wrong idea. So, I tuned in to a number of these issues, some of which I was doing primary research on. I began to view these topics that got a lot of attention and stirred up a lot of concern from a dual perspective – that of a practicing epidemiologist and that of an outside observer – almost as if I were an anthropologist. I would contend that one can’t really understand what is going on with the hyping of health risks without considering the social context in which messages about health get disseminated. In addition, as a scientist, I tried to assess what the evidence actually indicated and where certain agency reports or partisan interpretations seemed to be overstating the evidence. I guess there were two emotions that motivated me to pursue what was a pretty demanding task – evaluating the evidence on my four topics and trying to sort out how it got refracted by different parties. One was fascination with some of the flagrant contradictions and incongruities; the other was frustration at some of the one-sided and unsupported claims. But above all, I felt that this was a very rich topic that had received little sustained attention.

EpiMonitor: Can you name health risks that are being hyped today and actions being taken to mitigate or study them that you think are not worthwhile?

Kabat: Two topics that come to mind are cell phones and fine particle air pollution. I wouldn’t say that the efforts to study them are not worthwhile. But the problem – the danger — is that certain results get more attention than other results, and influential groups create a narrative that may not reflect all of the relevant science. For example, Lennart Hardell an oncologist in Sweden has aggressively argued that the evidence suggests the possibility that cell phone use and mobile phone use may cause brain cancers and brain tumors. He has gone as far as to attack the work of highly respected epidemiologists in print who have found the evidence unconvincing. Here is an example where certain results get more emphasis and perhaps insufficiently critical attention, contributing to the perception that the evidence indicates the existence of a hazard. There are also self-appointed activist groups like the Bioinitiative which give one-sided assessments of the evidence.

A second example of the clash of interpretations of the scientific evidence has been unfolding in connection with the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) efforts to introduce new and more stringent regulations concerning diesel and fine particle air pollution in California. If enacted, these new regulations will have very real economic consequences through their effect on the trucking and construction industries. The crux of the matter is that CARB is relying on certain epidemiologic studies which appear to show an association of fine particle air pollution with mortality, but it ignores certain other studies which show absolutely no association. My point is simply that it is terribly irresponsible for a powerful government agency to not consider all of the relevant evidence –- I’m only talking about high-quality studies — on a question with such far-reaching effects on the economy and on livelihoods. This is not a matter of being retrograde, or pro-industry, or giving air pollution a pass. We have to get beyond appearances and being ensnared by political correctness. This is a question of evaluating all of the relevant evidence on a question before formulating a policy which will have very far-reaching effects.

To read the full interview, please visit Geoffrey Kabat’s Web site Hyping Health Risks.

Post a comment