Junk science 101: Junk Science Judo by Steven Milloy is a primer in the art of identifying counterfeit science, and enables the reader to detect the statistical malpractice rampant in today's news media.

Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares & Scams, by Steven J. Milloy, Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2001, 216 pages, hardbound, $18.95.

Junk Science Judo is a rare gem of a book; reading it should be a prerequisite to watching the network television news, the main purveyors of junk science. Steven Milloy provides many examples of flawed statistical studies masquerading as science. Milloy cautions readers to be wary of studies that are based upon health impacts that are not observable, not measurable, or based upon subjective opinion. He also warns against "Environmental" and so-called "Meta-analyses" studies that do not measure actual exposure to alleged health risks.

Junk science is based on the assumption that there is no safe exposure level for poisons and carcinogens. However, notes Milloy, "every substance is toxic at a sufficiently high level of exposure. The corollary is that a substance is not toxic at sufficiently low levels of exposure." Junk science advocates invoke the "better safe than sorry" premise, but Milloy wisely advises that "your job is to doubt until they've met the burden of proof. Theories, anecdotes, and assumptions aren't proof of anything." Making the junk science crowd prove their case with a courtroom standard of proof embodies the essential logical premise that it is impossible to prove a negative.

"Body counts, or rather 'non-counts,' are simply more statistical malpractice," Milloy contends. He cites the New England Journal of Medicine's defense of an editorial criticizing a study that claimed obesity kills 300,000 people per year. "Calculations of attributable risk are fraught with problems.... When several known factors are taken into account, it is even possible to find that they account for more than 100 percent of deaths -- a nonsensical result." Even scientific peer review "does not guarantee that a study is good or valid." This is primarily because peer reviewers "typically don't receive or evaluate study data" and "peer review is (unfortunately) not usually an adversarial process."

Though animal testing -- which yields many alarming findings publicized by junk science advocates -- has its uses, it is "unwise to assume that chemicals act the same in laboratory rodents and people," especially since many of the laboratory mice are interbred to be "cancer time bombs." PCBs and saccharin were both decried in the late 1970s as cancer risks in humans on the basis of testing laboratory mice, and federal regulations were ...