Best not to know
The hope of curing prostate cancer by early diagnosis
(8 September, p 21)
should be moderated. The measurement of serum PSA (prostate-specific antigen)
has doubled the apparent incidence of prostate cancer in men in the US who can
afford the test. However, the mortality rate in this group has not changed.
Ian F. Tannock concludes in the May 2000 issue of The Lancet that
the diagnosis of asymptomatic prostate cancer has resulted in “a large
population of men who, 15 years ago, would have remained happily unaware of any
problem” but are now “consumed by anxiety about their PSA”.
Emil Freireich of the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center goes so far as to say of
all cancers that “early detection does not influence survival. Cancer is either
a local or a systemic disease鈥攖hat decision is made by the cancer” (
The Lancet Oncology, August 2001).
120 per cent meat
Feedback is puzzled about a label on a sausage stating that among other
contents it contains “not less than 100 per cent meat”
(29 September).
The meat contents of meat products are controlled by the Meat Products and
Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984. As a public analyst, one part of my
job is to carry out analyses to ensure that pies, sausages and so on comply with
them.
Meat, as defined by the regulations, “means the flesh, including the fat, and
the skin, rind, gristle and sinew in amounts naturally associated with the flesh
used of any animal or bird which is normally used for human consumption”. The
minimum meat contents specified in the regulations are calculated from the
weight of raw meat. When meat is cooked it loses water in the same way that
tomatoes do when they are boiled to make ketchup. This means that a piece of
traditionally roasted meat may have a meat content of over 120 per cent.
Musical cables
I occasionally take copies of New 杏吧原创 home from the office in
a sad effort to impress my family. This has backfired. Never again will I be
taken seriously. The first item in The Last Word
(29 September) was entitled
“Powerful sound”. I started to read out the first sentence, the gist of which
was “why do overhead power lines hum?” to my wife and children Emma (11) and
Harry (9).
My attempt at erudition was drowned out by the gleeful, and on reflection
rather obvious, chorus: “It’s because they don’t know the words.”
Scott's mistake
Susan Solomon suggests that Robert Scott’s expedition to the South Pole ended
in disaster because of unusually bad weather
(13 October, p 47). But the
question remains whether Scott could have allowed more reasonable margins for
error when planning his expedition. Had Amundsen encountered the same weather,
his margins for error and detailed preparations would undoubtedly have saved his
and his companions’ lives.
For example, had Scott listened to contemporary polar theory, he would most
have likely selected dogs rather than ponies and given himself and his men
better training in the use of skis. It is too convenient to blame the
weather.
Rock no more
The item in Feedback
on 15 September
regarding the continuing popularity of
vinyl reminded me of something I heard recently and found interesting:
apparently, the annual sales of record decks now outstrip those of guitars.
It seems that today’s youth aspire to be disc jockeys rather than rock stars.
Who am I going to listen to when I eventually get fed up with my Smiths
albums?
Correction
In the review of four books on astronomy
(6 October, p 51),
Miranda was wrongly described as a moon of Jupiter. Miranda is a satellite of
Uranus.
Nuclear nightmare
Congratulations. You just identified what you consider to be a prime target
for terrorist attacks in Britain, namely the Sellafield nuclear plant, throwing
in for good measure a photograph of a nuclear explosion
(13 October, p 10).
When journalists attack the nuclear industry there is almost always such a
photograph, I suppose to make the point that nuclear energy is potentially very
dangerous, which it most certainly is. But full-scale nuclear explosions are
very difficult to produce. It is a matter of keeping enough fissile material
together for a long enough period to get a high fission yield, something that is
extremely unlikely to happen in the chaotic “nightmare scenario” that you
describe.
So the bomb photograph is misleading and out of context. However, release of
radioactive material into the atmosphere is a distinct possibility, but whether
quite on the scale of Chernobyl is very questionable. Chernobyl was a real
nuclear reactor explosion鈥攁 mini-bomb if you like. With your scenario we
are not talking about nuclear bombs.
Letter
A chilling and compelling article. It seems to me that having foolishly
created this appalling danger, diverting Britain’s entire military and police
budget for a decade to reducing it might not be an overreaction. Making the
whole of Britain a no-fly zone until the material is safely vitrified or buried
might be sensible.
Letter
I’m sure the idea of attacking a nuclear facility will already have crossed
the terrorists’ minds, but did you need to discuss their “ideal” targets in such
detail?
Doubtless you will say that the information you published is already in the
public domain. Fine. Let them work it out for themselves. Don’t give them
chapter and verse.
Why not just put a big arrow on your main picture with the caption “Aim
aircraft here”?
Several readers made similar points. But the article revealed nothing that is
not already publicly available, and the events of 11 September showed we should
not underestimate terrorists. Pointing out the risks isn’t irresponsible.
Ignoring them is鈥擡d
Crying wolf
Stephen Harris would like to reintroduce large carnivorous mammals to Britain
(29 September, p 40),
including the wolf, lynx and bear. In Norway we have great
problems with carnivores and livestock. Wolves have recently been reintroduced
and cause more damage than other carnivores in the areas where they are present.
They not only kill single sheep to eat, they damage whole flocks.
In this country, the authorities pay millions of pounds in compensation for
losses and to protect livestock from carnivores. Although “friends of the
wolves” insist that they are part of our fauna, farmers object to the damage.
Wolves are unlikely to attack humans, unless the animals have rabies, but many
people still fear their presence in the forests.
Letter
Harris seems to think it’s cruel “to chase deer for 30 kilometres with a pack
of hounds”, but he also thinks it’s an excellent idea to introduce wild wolves
as predators to do exactly the same thing. Is it that he thinks chasing deer is
cruel, or simply that he doesn’t like the beings that chase deer in this country
at the moment? Perhaps he could tell us what difference it makes to the
deer?
Letter
Wouldn’t bringing back wolves increase the risk of rabies? “I don’t think
so,” says Harris. “Once we thought that rabies was transferred easily between
animals. But now it appears that the fox can’t transfer the fox virus to a dog
and vice versa.” In which case, as humans, we obviously could not be infected by
a rabid dog.
Dangerous habit
A couple of points need to be addressed regarding the letter from Harry Corbett
(6 October, p 62).
The fact that smoking results in different cancers in
developing and developed countries does not call into question smoking-related
carcinogenesis. Cancer results from a number of alterations to the genetic code
of a cell.
The equation is not: smoking = cancer but smoking + X + Y = cancer (the
“multi-hit” scenario). X and Y can be a number of things including environmental
influences, dietary considerations and underlying genetic susceptibilities. This
explains why, even in developed countries, not all smokers develop cancer and
those that do develop different cancers.
Although not smoking-related, consider the case of Burkitt’s lymphoma. This
cancer has an apparently strange distribution, in that it is largely confined to
those areas of Africa that are wet and have relatively high constant
temperatures. It affects populations infected with Epstein-Barr virus that have
a high incidence of a genetic abnormality in an oncogene (a gene that controls
cell division). The environmental influence results from the as yet unknown
action of malaria and the consequential distribution of the mosquito. So the
equation here is malaria + EBV + genetic susceptibility = Burkitt’s
lymphoma.
Similarly, there are clusters of other cancers such as liver cancer in Asia,
particularly Japan, with the same factors involved鈥攊nfection with
hepatitis viruses, for example. Smoking will exacerbate such problems as it is a
further attack the cell has to endure. Populations are under assault by various
factors and differ in their responses to them.
The evidence that smoking is a potent cause of cancer and other disease is
overwhelming. Since the habit has effects not only on smokers but on others, in
particular their children, it is entirely reasonable for smoking to be curtailed
in public. The difference between smoking and other activities is that with even
the most dangerous of sports the risks are relatively low. Smoking on the other
hand is virtually certain to either kill or damage the smoker and those around
them.
The human context
Robert Matthews discusses a critical area for the future direction of science
(6 October, p 50).
As a general practitioner, I note that the wonders of modern medical science
play little if any role in the day-to-day choices that we humans make.
Scientific knowledge in medicine does not seem to greatly influence personal and
social behaviour. The facts of medical research are to a large extent ignored by
a public that is either uninspired by them or disbelieving of them.
The rise and rise of complementary medicine signals disapproval of a view of
medicine and health that is strongly grounded in science. Does this mean a
public vote for the end of scientific hegemony in medicine?
This shift has ramifications for the future of science in general. The world
of the 21st century does not seem to be as secure as might have been predicted
from a previous century of technological and scientific progress. Science may
become a victim of a world that wishes to return to a more “human” perspective.
In its adherence to objectivity and impersonal perspectives, science may have
alienated itself from the very subjects and environments that it attempts to
understand.
Perhaps we humans have evolved to hold only beliefs that advance us in our
social and personal relationships and that ultimately lead to a more fully
unified human species. The urgent challenge to science is to enter into a
dialogue that affirms its social relevance, and acknowledges that adherence to
“irrational beliefs” may ultimately lead to bold new horizons.
Who's your sponsor?
I think that Arnold Relman is wrong to call for editors to refuse papers from
scientists for whom there is a conflict of interest (22 September, p 46). If
there is a requirement that authors declare any commercial sponsorship, then
those authors will have an incentive to comply in order to avoid being
blacklisted in future. But if there is a total ban on the work of sponsored
scientists, then authors will simply conceal their sponsorships because they
will have nothing to lose鈥攁fter all, they’ll get blacklisted anyway.
Better to know where the opinions are coming from, then the source can be
held responsible.
People must learn to take care of their own safety
Technology can play a part in improving aircraft security, but it would be
a serious mistake to rely on it to the exclusion of everything else
(13 October, p 56).
Total security can never be imposed upon a system where people are
involved鈥攚e are too wayward and cunning. Rather, the airlines must teach
the travelling public to participate in maintaining its own safety.
An American pilot recently addressed his passengers before take-off, to this
effect: “Once we take off we are on our own鈥攏o one can help us. If anyone
stands up and claims there is a bomb on board, he is lying. If anyone stands up
brandishing a weapon鈥攖hrow everything you have at him as hard as possible,
then get blankets over him. It does not matter if he is not alone, as there are
40 of you. Bring him down. In the meantime, as we are here alone together for an
hour or two, introduce yourself to your neighbour鈥攇et to know one
another.”
He received a prolonged round of applause for this, and rightly so. It was
both management and leadership of the first order. With a few words he turned a
crowd of frightened people into a united, potential defence force. He told them
exactly what to do and, most importantly, gave them permission to do it, so that
precious time would not be wasted as hesitant passengers looked anxiously at one
another waiting for a lead.
Better yet, those people will fly again with that airline and when they
travel with other airlines will know what to do and will probably spread the
word.
Compare that with the tremulous, paranoid thinking behind the confiscation of
such potential “weapons” as plastic scissors and tiny penknives, while issuing
serrated plastic knives and metal forks with the in-flight meal.