John Stossel: Fear More Carcinogenic Than Radiation

John Stossel's atrocious lack of journalistic integrity (or ability?) has been amply documented by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Transparency, and Media Matters for America. Whether he is spewing misinformation about the public school system (in 1999 and again in 2006), pretending that there is no scientific consensus on global warming (here, here, here, and here), or making an ass of himself in his attempt to turn consumers away from organic food, John Stossel remains the king of slipshod TV journalism (if, of course, one leaves out FOX News).

On the May 12, 2006 edition of 20/20, Stossel played true to form. The report was one of his "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity" segments in which he lists ten commonly accepted beliefs which are then "refuted." Myth number six was: "AVOID ALL RADIATION."

Does anyone actually believe that we should avoid ALL radiation? What about the radiation from our microwave ovens, electric blankets, and dental X-rays? Sounds like a straw man to me. Stossell himself discusses the supposed health benefits of radon therapy in Montana--immediately before implying that the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl was not that big of a deal.

Stossel on Chernobyl

Stossel cites a controversial study by the International Atomic Energy Agency which concluded that 56 inviduals could definitely be said to have died from Chernobyl-related causes--although, of course, that number may be much higher owing to recent cancer deaths which were at least partly caused by the disaster, and there will probably still be several thousand additional cancer deaths in the future (pp. 12-19).

Here is Stossel's take on this already controversial report:

A study by eight international agencies found 56 people were killed. . . .
Thousands of other people may still die of cancer, but nowhere near the
number that was predicted. The study says that the biggest health menace the
people faced was psychological trauma in part from fear. The fear was worse
than the radiation [emphasis added].

That must have been some fear. However, I doubt that this fear is what caused a tenfold increase in thyroid cancer rates in children living in the area of the disaster.

Hormesis

Just in case anyone thought that this bit of journalistic malpractice was a fluke, Stossel also interviews a toxicology professor named Ed Calabrese, who claims that very low doses of radiation may have beneficial effects on animals and people. The scientific name for this effect is hormesis, and it sometimes works, not just for radioactive substances, but for other toxins as well (see Calabrese and Linda A. Baldwin's "Reevaluation of the Fundamental Dose-Response Relationship" in the September 1999 issue of BioScience. For a less technical overview, see this story in U.S. News and World Reports).

In his published research, Calabrese suggests that hormesis should make regulatory agencies like the EPA think twice about how they regulate radioactive substances. After all, if tiny amounts of certain toxins are actually good for you, then why waste time and money on the enforecement of exacting regulatory standards? As Calabrese himself puts it, "it is becoming progressively clear that the regulatory and scientific communities can continue to ignore the growing mountain of data on [hormesis] only at peril to the greater interests of society" ("Response from Calabrese and Baldwin," BioScience, Jan. 2000).

Stossel's purpose in having Calabrese on his show, of course, was to make radiation of all kinds seem more warm and fuzzy. But here's the problem: a number of scientists have suggested that weakening environmental regulations against radioactive substances and other toxins because of hormesis is a bad idea. Among other problems:

• One of the examples of hormesis supplied in the Calabrese and Baldwin study was of rats exposed to radioactive cadmium. These rats had lower levels of testicular tumors. However, Calabrese and Baldwin don't mention that 1) this decrease was not statistically significant, and hence likely to be a chance result, and 2) these same rats also had an increase in occurence of prostate tumors. Whoops.
• Calabrese's studies on hormesis take place over very short time periods, whereas environmental exposure to even tiny amounts of a toxin over long periods may lead to problems not discoverable over the course of mere days or weeks (Gregg Morris, "Hormesis and Risk Assessment," BioScience, Jan. 2000).
• According to an October 2003 report in the journal Science, some toxins may actually be more harmful at low doses than at higher doses.

Naturally, none of these points made it into Stossel's finished report--and neither did half a dozen or so others which I haven't listed (see, for example, Thayer et al's "Fundamental Flaws of Hormesis for Public Health Decisions," which was published a full six months before the airing of Stossel's report).

And neither did this item: Calabrese received large amounts of funding for his hormesis research from the Department of Defense and the Air Force--at a time when the Air Force is dealing with controversies about toxic contamination at several of its bases (see also here).

How is it that a seasoned investigative reporter like John Stossel can fail so spectacularly to provide accurate information on important public health issues that a graduate student from the University of Oklahoma's English Department can find multiple problems with his work? Why does Stossel's "journalism" fail in this way again and again and again? Since today's post is already so long, I will save the probable answer to this question for another time.

Damn. I forgot to spell "answer" with a dollar sign.