On information on the internet

I occasionally receive chain emails, or social network versions of chain emails. They are no longer the regular ocurrences they used to be when I was young but I do still get them sometimes. I can't help but wonder whether the people who propagate them really believe that something bad will befall them if they didn't, or if the messages are just a way to tell their friends that they are thinking of them. I don't mind them even though they do distract from the already rich landscape of messages and information online.

Other widely (re)circulated messages often involve health scares. I use the word 'scares' because mostly the information that is circulated has no scientific basis even though scientists are often quoted as having evidence in support of such claims. For example myths about microwave use abound, from cancer scares to, I just heard this morning, how microwaving food increases the salt content.  I am a scientist/professional sceptic of sort and critical analysis of everything that I am presented with is part of my daily routine. Scientific information may be daunting for some but it is often not even necessary to look into technical details to assess whether some of the information being passed around should be taken seriously.  Consider a few questions when you see such information.  Do you know 1) whether the quoted scientist(s) exists, 2) that they are reputable and are likely to have conducted their work reasonably well (e.g. where do they work?), and 3) that their 'evidence' has not been twisted beyond recognition by the writer?  A search on the internet for the scientist, the work they do and where they publish their work (e.g. was the work published in peer-reviewed journals/did the work pass the scrutiny of other scientists), and what they actually say in the abstract of their publication (a summary of their methods and findings usually found at the start of a scientific paper) would help you assess whether you need to be wary of this latest health scare.  Most universities have departments to deal with releasing their findings to the public so a look at the university web pages may help. Funding agencies also frequently ask for a lay abstract of the scientist's work as a condition for funding and this can be found on the funding agency's website.  It is also possible to write to the scientist to ask for clarification- professional contact details should be available if their work has been published and/or they work for a reputable institution e.g. a university or a hospital or a research institute.  Increasingly, people are also posting information to refute the latest 'hot' health scare so generally a search for the article you want to query will also bring out the counter information.  Word of warning- there is a lot to read out there but treat everything you read with a pinch of salt. 

Here's an example.  Recently a friend posted an article about the McDonald's burger that did not rot on social media as evidence that there must be tonnes of preservatives and other nasties in the burger. This particular social media site also listed related posts/news under the original post.  On this occasion there were a few articles written by people who tried to evaluate what happens to a McDonald's burger over time using evidence based methods. The conclusion  was that the size of the McDonald's burger actually leads to rapid dehydration which prevents the burger from rotting. The same thing happens to a home made burger using store bought buns provided the size and shape of the burger were similar to the McDonald's one. In summary, whatever you think of McDonald's, you can't use a non-rotting burger as evidence of dodgy dealings.  

In days of old, checking the veracity and accurate reporting of information are usually dealt with by the 'normal' press, who operate under strict regulatory control. The internet, in contrast, is a bit of a free for all. Your friends may have sent you information with the best of intentions but is it wise to blindly trust everything you read?