Why are so many health-related anxieties related to exposures that we all encounter?
Here's a model that offers some explanation — I'm calling it the mass exposure paradox. It arises from two opposing consequences of universal exposure:
-
Mass exposure to something harmful would generate highly significant evidence for its harm. When billions of people use or consume something for decades without a clear epidemic of harm, it becomes strong evidence against large effect sizes. Genuinely harmful exposures — such as leaded gasoline or cigarette smoking — leave unmistakable signals.
-
Mass exposure boosts memetic fitness. When everyone is exposed, narratives of harm can gain cultural traction, sweeping through social networks and broadcast media.
Examples
- Cellphones & brain cancer:
... (read 454 more words →)
right; I'm not making the claim that microplastics definitely have zero effects, or that we should halt research into them.
but I am making the claim that these sorts of risks — microplastics included — receive attention from lay people far outweighing their actual danger; and that a similar model of social exposure explains similar outcomes
let me draw an analogy to the microbes case: now that we have the scientific method, we can evaluate hypotheses like "failing to wash your hands before surgery causes a higher risk of infection", or "regions with stagnant water have higher cases of disease than regions with fresh water", or "a culture in which people frequently wash their hands... (read more)