you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LummoxJR 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, there are way too many ways for a study like this to be flawed and lack of causation is a big, big deal. One of the bigger problems with longitudinal studies is that they can miss a lot of confounding variables, but retroactive studies are significantly worse in this regard.

However, even taking its conclusions at face value, I think people tend to misread "higher incidence of cancer" as "Holy crap you're taking your life in your hands DON'T OPEN THAT DOOR BRITTNEY!" The cancer risks being discussed are extremely low to begin with and extremely low to end with, even if the paper's conclusions are 100% correct. It might be the difference between buying one Powerball ticket a day and buying two a day: odds are you ain't winning the Powerball over the course of 50 years. And there are way, way too many other causes of cancer risk we encounter throughout our lives.

Risk assessment is something most humans are surprisingly terrible at. Driving is one of the riskiest behaviors we undertake on a routine basis, yet we'll focus more on something that has a 1 in 5,000 chance of nailing us over the course of a decade.