Health in the Headlines: The Stories Behind the Stories.

• Author: Rubinstein, Ellis

Stephen Klaidman. Oxford, $24.95. Maybe you've noticed revisionism running rampant through the environmental-hazards community of late. Take asbestos. Turns out society might prefer to leave it in our kids' schools--Bobby's risk of being harmed by it is miniscule, says the new dogma, but woe to the construction worker who pulls it out. Then there's "Deadly Dioxin," the Agent Orange stepchild that was once candidate for the Most Pernicious Carcinogen Award. Now, some researchers say, dioxin may be dangerous only after high levels of exposure.

For scientists, reappraising the evidence is as essential as the original research itself. It's often these second or third looks that truly zero in on an issue. But for the layman, reappraisal leads to confusion. Is cholesterol good this week, or bad?

Whose judgment should we accept when scientists disagree or change their views? How can we hedge our bets so that we avoid massive overreactions that cost us far more in the long run than putting up with the perceived dangers? And how can we protect our lives in the process? Is more data necessarily better? And how can we tell when the media is hyping a story? If these kinds of questions bother you, Klaidman offers some answers.

A journalist who spent 23 years with The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The International Herald Tribune, Klaidman earnestly recounts the histories of seven of society's most difficult environmental and public health dilemmas. This is not fireside reading. Chapter by 20-page chapter, Klaidman sketches chronologies of the public policy debates that have raged over AIDS, nuclear power, pesticides, the greenhouse effect, smoking, radon, and cholesterol. Examining how the authorities behaved as each worry surfaced, how the press reported each story, and how the public reacted, Klaidman issues his frustrating verdict:

Reporters and editors must grapple with uncertain scientific results that resist interpretation, fundamental assumptions that are hidden and untested, undisclosed values that underlie important regulatory decisions, and the clandestine substitution of illegitimate economic or political goals for the public interest. As a result, even the most thoughtfully reported and composed stories . . . rarely, if ever, are able to provide the definitive answers the public is seeking.

In other words, when it comes to plumbing the legitimacy of this week's health crisis, your guess is as good as mine. But Klaidman isn't out...