Great discussion through Digest Numbers 882 and 883.

Thanks to Shelley for the good news there's an effort under way for a
nationalized incident reporting system. I once did a brief review of
available information on pesticide exposures in a state mentioned in the
discussion. It took me weeks. I learned there was a concern over
sub-clinical effects (related to David's comment on "long-term exposures"
but otherwise an issue not raised in the discussion), alongside the concern
for "acute poisoning." Overall I was disappointed that there wasn't the
kind of information there is now, as suggested by Shelley in the examples
she provides, which David supplements. Nor were there warnings on how "to
read" the information that's made available. Thanks, Chris, for your
instructive commentary.

Did readers catch that Shelley was reporting a prevalence rate (5.5 per
1,000) as well as an incidence rate (18.2 per 100,000). The two together
provide a comprehensive epidemiological picture on disease occurrence more
than one or the other alone. Prevalence is the "current rate" at a
particular point in time, and incidence is the rate of "new cases" at a
particular point in time (this year; end of the year as of December 31;
decade concluding 1999; etc).

Louise Mehler's contribution is one of those rare instances where "a
source" self-identifies on something that has come to be, or at least for a
portion of what ensues. In this instance, Louise provides thoughts on
Chris' "impressively thorough" summary and adds a further caution on
possible mortality inflation.

Chris, I like the title, "The anatomy and evolution of a bogus factoid."
Your first paragraph rivets attention on material you intend to deliver.
Going through that material item after item demonstrates that any and many
groups may use information on faith and trust. The caution you push on
internet use is greatly needed: Yes, the internet and other data sources
should be subject to question. I would welcome you as a guest speaker in
the classroom. Your computer acumen and ability to synthesize should gain
you invitations as a guest speaker for university classes (if not more).
Once in the classroom, I would have you share with students how you get so
much from one-two hours of computer work. I cannot turn around that much
information in that short a time, and I've rarely had your luck in getting
responses so quickly.

David provides another angle on pesticide exposure. Higher percentages in
the California survey he cites reported over-exposure than those who
reported being "sickened" and those who sought treatment. What is reported
(as one discussant suggested) appears to be tip-of-the-iceburg.
Interestingly, several internet sources Chris listed used the term
"suffer," followed by either the generalized "poisoning" or more precise
"acute poisoning," whereas a few used alternate terms like "sickened,"
"injured," etc. Has the one-time concern for sub-clinical build-up been
conflated within the word choices for describing the consequences of
pesticide exposure? There has been some interesting research from the
Middle South (Arcury and Quandt) and other areas of the country outlining
possible parameters of field pesticide exposure beyond the worker to family
members.

I'm glad to see Karen offer her contribution on "risk perception," since
perceived risk encapsulates the discussion. I heard Karen speak a few years
ago; she does good fieldwork.

We speak together and offer our ideas at the same time. Six individual
contributions to Digest Numbers 882 and 883 don't show much support for the
idea of list-serve members as "this crowd." Nice job and thanks to Chris
for starting this off. I enjoyed the reading exchange.

Keith V Bletzer
Medical Anthropologist