A friend of mine likes to leave the TV on while she putters around the house. The background noise “keeps her company.” Unfortunately, it also exposes her to the drivel oozing from her flat screen.
In their quest to keep our eyeballs riveted to the tube, media outlets have fanned the flames of fear about Ebola. Lurid graphics, sensational speculation, and vague prognostications of doom keep both ratings and public anxiety high.
A friend of mine likes to leave the TV on while she putters around the house. The background noise “keeps her company.” Unfortunately, it also exposes her to the drivel oozing from her flat screen.
In their quest to keep our eyeballs riveted to the tube, media outlets have fanned the flames of fear about Ebola. Lurid graphics, sensational speculation, and vague prognostications of doom keep both ratings and public anxiety high.
I mentioned that a local charity I support would soon conduct a medical mission at one of their overseas locations. My friend hoped they weren't going anyplace with an Ebola outbreak, concerned about the possibility this group could bring the deadly bug back with them. Two people in the US had died from it, she told me, her brow knitted.
This got me to thinking about what we worry about.
If, in fact, two deaths on American soil could be attributed to Ebola, how dangerous does that make the disease? With a population of more than 316 million, the early odds for an Ebola-related demise are one in 158 million, which is pretty darn small.
That's less than the chances of your life being taken this year by a tornado: one in 5,693,000. That is also less than the odds of you buying the farm by lightning strike, contact with stinging insects, murder, gunshot, motor vehicle accidents, Alzheimer’s, or heart disease, which are one in 1.1 million, 75.8 thousand, 19 thousand, 356, 112, 47, and 7, respectively.
We also note the danger from Ebola might look rather pale in comparison to household chemicals we encounter every day. Studies have strongly linked cancer with exposure to plasticizers in hair spray, shampoo, fragrances, and deodorants, exotic compounds in our air fresheners and cleaning solutions, and flame retardants in mattresses, upholstery, and electronic casings.
How many of us breathe a little less easy thanks to volatile organic compounds silently seeping from our laser and inkjet printers, wood paneling, and carpeting? And who knows how many citizens, young and old, become time bombs for ill effects from contact with herbicides and pesticides?
And that's just the stuff we're not supposed to eat. Plenty of research links cancer to the chemicals that keep the fats and oils in processed foods from going rancid. Same goes for the substances that keep the color in hotdogs and sausages. And there's a growing body of scientific evidence saying cancer is our probably legacy from artificial colorings and artificial sweeteners.
But you won't hear about any of that on the news, cable or otherwise. Boring scientific facts don't make programming nearly as compelling as overhyped, not-well-understood, bogeyman illness. Besides, none of our sponsors want to remove those awful, cancer-causing elements from their very profitable products. And getting us all worked up about a distant disease distracts us from the real threats to our health, our livelihoods, and our democracy.
I told my friend to turn off the “news” channel. The sky may soon be falling, but Ebola will not be the cause.
Pat Grimes, a former South Bay resident, writes from Ypsilanti, Mich. He can be reached at pgwriter@inbox.com
