MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - FREE/BARGAIN — Non-Fiction

AnotherCat · 01-12-2017, 05:44 PM

Personally I avoid charred meat too and that because I do not like it.

I don't know, offhand, what the most recent studies are claiming for charred meat with respect to propensity to cause cancers, but in relaying information regarding risks to us the news media do us a great disservice because the way they do it makes better headlines and promotes future sales, rather than informs.

So they may state that it is now proven that one has a 30% greater probability of dying if one eats such and such a food, but if you look into the actual results of the study one will often find that in absolute terms the risk is actually still very low. For example, the study may show that those not eating the food have a mortality rate of 1 in 1000 whereas those eating the food have a mortality rate of 1.3 in 1000 i.e. a 30% increase in risk.

So in absolute terms the risk is still so very low that it is of no consequence, the media have just presented it in a way that makes it sound high risk. That applies to media reporting of risks in general, not just those associated with food - they are after standout headlines to draw attention and the instilling of worry, the worry promoting readers/viewers/listeners to be captured into remaining as, or becoming an ongoing audience in order to remain "informed (sic)".

01-12-2017, 05:44 PM	#59
AnotherCat .... Posts: 1,547 Karma: 18068960 Join Date: May 2012 Device: ....	Personally I avoid charred meat too and that because I do not like it. I don't know, offhand, what the most recent studies are claiming for charred meat with respect to propensity to cause cancers, but in relaying information regarding risks to us the news media do us a great disservice because the way they do it makes better headlines and promotes future sales, rather than informs. So they may state that it is now proven that one has a 30% greater probability of dying if one eats such and such a food, but if you look into the actual results of the study one will often find that in absolute terms the risk is actually still very low. For example, the study may show that those not eating the food have a mortality rate of 1 in 1000 whereas those eating the food have a mortality rate of 1.3 in 1000 i.e. a 30% increase in risk. So in absolute terms the risk is still so very low that it is of no consequence, the media have just presented it in a way that makes it sound high risk. That applies to media reporting of risks in general, not just those associated with food - they are after standout headlines to draw attention and the instilling of worry, the worry promoting readers/viewers/listeners to be captured into remaining as, or becoming an ongoing audience in order to remain "informed (sic)".