Public Health and Safety Books

The number of logic fallacies, unquantified opinions and illogical rants is shocking for a book that is about other myths.

Example, some of the most egregious examples:
Page 37: The Myth: "Junk food causes ill health". The Fact: "There is no such thing as food that is bad and food that is good for you." Really, all food is equally good for you?
Page 48: The Myth: "Non-Organic foods are covered in harmful pesticides". The Fact: "One of the pesticides deemed safe by organic produces carriers a warning that it is harmful to fish."
A proper book would look to determine if the myth is true or not (and that is what I was hoping for.) But instead, the fact does not refute the myth, doesn't provide if organic foods are good or bad, and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Time and time again, the authors avoid meaningful debate and rather simply rely on name calling and off the cuff opinions.

Patricia F. Stephens, M.ASCP #81:
Mr. Wm. Podmore's negative remarks for the necessity for world security from H5N1 influenza virus ignore factual information from the World Health Organization and other reliable sources concerning the history of the world's average of three pandemic's every one hundred years, and also fails to point out that we have had only two pandemics thus far and are now at the end of the current one hundred years. One can and should learn from historical facts!
He also fails to mention that the present H5N1 infections require concurrent "ordinary" flu infection at the same time as H5N1 in the human incubator in order to explode and cause the third pandemic of this century. We were lucky this year. If the infected wild bird migration into Alaska and then into the lower states next fall brings H5N1 together with the usual plain flu, the shoe may have dropped.
While there are many immune system builders on line and in health food stores which could help prevent infection (particularly mushroom products, says Dr. Nan Fuchs) it is certainly a fact that pharmaceutical companies are promoting useless and harmful drugs while silently clapping their hands at the scare tactics bringing in obscene profits.
Neither side of the fence can be absolutely certain about coming events, but to suggest it's unnecessary to prepare for this clear possibility is worse than careless--it is inane.

"It's all a matter of opinion." How often have we heard this when we venture to suggest, say, that astrology is tosh? But are all opinions equally valid? Aren't some based on stronger evidence than others?

Evidence is different from possibility. For example, the scaremongers at the New Scientist, the Independent, etc tell us that the AH5N1 avian flu virus could mutate into a virus transmissible to humans. Yes, it could. But how likely is it to do so?

The lead editorial in the British Medical Journal of 29 October 2005 said, "The lack of sustained human-to-human transmission suggests that this AH5N1 avian virus does not currently have the capacity to cause a human pandemic. ... the appearance of a modified avian virus capable of triggering a human pandemic is unlikely: there have been more than 3300 flu outbreaks in birds with 150 million killed and only 118 human cases, and the disease in birds is proving containable with good surveillance and prompt action."

Focusing on mythical scares distracts us from real problems. This book cites the example of the scare about DDT, which led to its banning in the late 1960s. As a result, malaria, which the use of DDT had almost eliminated, kills, worldwide, three million people, mostly children, every year.

This very useful book studies scare stories promoted in Britain about all sorts of things that, we're told, damage our health - British beef, salt, sugar, tap water, alcohol, non-organic food, the MMR vaccine, GM foods and sunshine. Given all these mortal scares, how come that generally we are living longer and healthier lives?

Are our rulers promoting paranoia, trying to scare us into feeling too weak and helpless to resist them? Is the destruction of Britain's industry leading to hostility to science itself? To paraphrase President Franklin D. Roosevelt, perhaps the only epidemic we have to fear is fear itself.

Dr. Hargarten, a gun prohibition activist best known for his discredited "food processor through flesh" wound ballistics, has authored a propaganda piece that masquerades as science. Hargarten relies on the publications of other activists and advocacy "researchers" whose work has been throughly discredited in the scientific criminolgic literature. (Better you should rely upon Gary Kleck's meticulous book, Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control", Aldine, 1997.) Among the flaws in the public health literature upon which Hargarten relies are: Failure to distinguish technically sound from inept studies, inconsistent application of scholarly standards, using speculation to rebut empirical evidence, omission of data or studies with unsupportive findings, pretending that evidence is worthless if it is not perfect, statistical legerdemain, failure to address relevant, contradictory studies; [1,2,3,4,5,6] habitual citation of sources for support when the sources were actually non-supportive; [1(at citations 2 and 15-17), 2(at citation 12), 3(at citation 7)] citation of sources for non-existent statistics;[5 (at citations 11 &13)] citation of sources for a proposition not studied by the sources;[2(at citations 10,12,14,15)] failure to address possible confusion between cause and effect;[3] use of small, unrepresentative, non-probability convenience samples improperly generalized to large populations;[1] the use of simplistic models that fail to control for complicating factors;[3] unawareness of valid measures of gun availability or the limitations of those measures;[3] illogically studying how often gun owners conceal their ownership by studying a sample of only those who have revealed their gun ownership;[4] "adjusting" the study sample to buttress a foregone conclusion;[2] prejudicially truncated data;[5] non-sequitur logic;[5] and characterization of lawful self-defense as "murder."[6] Do not waste your money on this propaganda. Edgar A. Suter MD, National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research Inc. [1]Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91. [2]Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relationship to Gun Ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327: 467-72. [3] Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities." N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1256-62. [4] Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Banton J, Reay D, Fligner CL "Validating survey responses to questions about gun ownership owners of registered handguns." Am J Epidemiol. 1990; 131(6):1080-4 [5] Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60 [6] Kellermann AL and Mercy JA. "Men, Women, and Murder: Gender-specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and Victimization." J Trauma. 1992; 33:1-5.

Trudy A. Karlson & Stephen W. Hargarten. Reducing Firearm Injury and Death: A Public Health Sourcebook on Guns. 1997. xix +172pp. $24.95 (paper).

"Often the best solutions to injury problems are passive ones. William Haddon Jr, MD, a founder of modern injury control research, urged public health professionals to focus on changing the product, rather than focusing exclusively on changing individual behavior." (p. xvi).

In the 1950s the common belief was that almost all motor vehicles injuries were caused by driver error, by the "nut behind the wheel." Thus policy attention was directed primarily to driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. This approach was not very successful in reducing vehicular injuries. The approach advocated and subsequently undertaken by injury control experts in the public health community was much broader. They recognized the importance not only of the motorist, but also of the vehicle and the highway environment. These factors were easier to change. Individuals will always make mistakes, and they sometimes behave recklessly. But when they do, should they have to die, or should their actions lead to the death of others? In the highway safety area, a decision was made to try to build a system that made it less likely for people to make errors, and also one that was more forgiving when errors were made. Automobiles now have better braking systems, collapsible steering columns, shatterproof windshields, nonrupture gas tanks, seat belts and airbags. Highways and emergency medical systems have also been vastly improved. This public health approach to traffic safety has been remarkably successful. Although there is no evidence that drivers today are in any way better than those of the 1950s, motor vehicle fatalities per mile driven have been reduced by over 75%. Karlson and Hargarten believe that a public health approach could also be effective in reducing firearm injuries. They focus on the gun as a consumer product, examining the sale and distribution of firearms as well as product design. "We know that great results in reducing injuries and deaths can be achieved if changes are made to the product or if access to the product is reduced. Least effective in impact on the population is trying to change how individuals use the product." (p. 125). Guns are among the most dangerous consumer products in the United States--currently an average of 100 people a day are killed with guns, a fatality rate far in excess of any other developed nation. Yet guns are among the least regulated of all products--in the United States there are more safety standards for toy guns and teddy bears than there are for firearms. The Karlson-Hargarten book is a sourcebook on firearms. It provides a brief history of guns and carefully defines terms: e.g. "relative stopping power," "double action," "terminal ballistics," "breech loader," "magazine," and "bore." The book then discusses how firearm design and the firearm distribution system could be changed to reduce gun injuries. As many aspects of automobiles have been altered to reduce their danger, so too could many aspects of firearms be altered--magazine capacity, barrel length, muzzle velocity, trigger pull, safeties, recoil, cartridges, serial numbers, and bullets. One could imagine a firearm which had a low risk not only of accidental discharge but also of lethal assault and suicide. The Karlson-Hargarten book is filled with reasonable policy suggestions which could effectively reduce firearm deaths at low cost to both gun owners and the general public. The following are only a few examples of the many aspects of firearm design and distribution which could be improved: (1) grip safeties which reduce the possibility that young children could inadvertently pull the trigger of a gun; (2) personalized guns which prevent unauthorized individuals from using the firearms--including angry or suicidal adolescents; (3) load-chamber indicators which prevent unintentional killings because the individual "didn't know the gun was loaded"; (4) lowered magazine capacity to reduce multiple killings; (5) the use of less lethal ammunition, such as rubber bullets, to lower the fatality rate due to gun woundings; (6) guns that "fingerprint" or mark each bullet as it is fired to improve bullet identification in crime; (7) state maximum one-gun-per-month purchase laws which reduce the profitability of gun-running from one state to another. The book is objective and easy to read. Public health implications are included for each section of each chapter. The book is not a strident demand for gun control, but a reasoned argument for a broader approach to gun policy--one that has worked well in other injury areas. The Karlson-Hargarten book is one step in the long journey to move the gun debate and gun policy away from the almost exclusive focus on training people in gun use and punishing those individuals who use guns in crime. Reducing Firearm Injury and Death makes it clear that there are numerous other policies which can effectively reduce firearm injuries and death. Anyone interested in firearms policy should read this book.

David Hemenway, PhD Professor of Health Policy Director, Harvard Injury Control Research Center Harvard School of Public Health 677 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 (617) 432=4493 (617) 432-4494 (fax) hemenway@hsph.harvard.edu

I had the opportunity to examine this book. As someone in the food industry I was disappointed by Food Chemical Safety. Only one chapter deals specifically with the United States. Food safety is food safety; but when you buy a book on the subject; you want one which is applicable to you. The book is narrowly focussed on the U.K. food industry. Beyond the geographical location; the book lacked depth. Short paragraphs (which made for an impressive Table of Contents) provided no substance. If you are reading about food chemical safety; you want information beyond a short paragraph which assumes you know nothing to begin with. As the book is written, I could see its only use as a text in a library for college or high school students with a paper to write.

This book is skewed, but authors have the right to do that. Just know that there are many ways to view a subject. If you use this book, be sure to look for other points of view if you want clarity on the issues.

Me da mucho susto que un senador que debe servir a los Estados Unidos va a ganar una gran cantidad de dinero a causa de imprimiendo este libro. Esos tipos republicanos no tienen ningun idea de verguenza.

Me preocupan que alguien vendería un libro, negociando en su servicio como iniciado del gobierno con el acceso a la inteligencia más valiosa de nuestra nación, para beneficiarse del sufrimiento que esta nación aguantó de septiembre el 11 de 2001.

I recommend this book for a good belly laugh. It is the worst written book I have ever seen. You think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. This is genuinely deplorable. It's hideous.

Buy this book. Enjoy it. Ignorant hicks have to make a living too, you know.

McCaffrey here does not answer any of the questions brought forth by critics of this insane drug war:

Why do countries like the Netherlands, which has quasi-legal marijuana, have *one tenth* the problems of drugs (per capita!) that we have?

Why are we wasting money imprisoning people?

When will drug warrriors answer for their crimes against humanity?

Avoid this book at all cost -- including the $$$ the publisher is asking for it. It is one of the poorly written textbooks I have ever encountered. I gave up after reading the first 60 pages. They were enough to convince me that the book is dated (published in 2002 but no citations dated after 1990). But much worse is the terrible stream-of-consciousness writing "style."

Evidently, the principal authors recognized that they needed help, so they list an editorial assitant on the title page. But that assistant must not have seen the manuscript, or he would not have let through such howlers as "... it carry's (sic) with it the probability ...". Or how about the list of criteria for causal inference (pages 54-56). It consists of one non sequitur after another.

And if all of this isn't bad enough, the brief discussion of statistical methods in Chapter 3 should demonstrate that the authors are clueless about basic biostatistics.

So, save your money.

Purchased to get some ideas on new inovation in warehouse design and layout. Is expensive. Book is dated and needs to to be updated or price needs to be drastically reduced. Has basic info from 10 years ago with little new added. I would not recommend this book unless you are looking for a basic primer.

I have used (and liked) "Jane's Chem-Bio Handbook" for the past four years.

This book, however, is another story. What little information presented is poorly organized. Information is scattered throughout the book. Some of it is duplicated. Information that is presented as being targeted towards a particular section (such as Hospitals, Utilities, Entertainment Facilities, etc.) is most often of a nature that should have been presented as base data. As a result, the targeted sections loose their "punch".

The book is very good at telling you that you need do something, but often doesn't tell you how to do that thing...So we have a document that manages to fall short as a checklist (for those that have a knowledge of the basics), and which also fails to provide much in the way of fundamentals (the discussion of explosives hidden in the Utilities section fails to mention ANFO (ammonium nitrate/fuel oil).

A good idea for a book, but wait until Jane's revises it.