On Science Sushi, affiliated with Discover, Christie Wilcox pummels Slate’s Ethan Linck over a claim that backpackers do not need to purify water they find in streams:
While we like to think of ourselves as rational creatures, there’s no doubt that human beings are actually quite awful at assessing risk. So I can understand why Ethan Linck thought to contextualize the risk of drinking from backcountry streams with data. “Life is triage, a constant series of negotiations between risks of varying severity,” he wrote. “And how we talk about those risks matters.”
Yes, it does—which is exactly why his piece in Slate last week was so damaging. It was anything but a careful, scientific evaluation of the risks. Wes Siler over at Outside Magazine already pointed out a myriad of issues with the article, but I want to zero in on the actual data, because Linck claimed to be looking at the matter scientifically. Instead, he cherry-picked sources to argue against doing one of the simplest things you can do to protect yourself from some truly awful diseases when you’re backpacking: treating your water.
She goes on to thrash him over his data, his methods, and pretty much his entire outlook on life. At this point, I’m just glad I’m not into the whole Nature Is Good And Wholesome! movement, as this would jolt me right out of it.
