Discussion about this post

User's avatar
easelox *&^%$#@#$%^&*())(*&^'s avatar

That's really funny.

So I would hope that we could correct for our increased detection ability and detection attempts. That's what I meant when I said much more careful analysis.

I assume there is a hell of a lot more to it than that, the few times I've tried to look for studies like this, they get so deep into arcane methodology I feel like I need a PhD just to read the stuff (not on this subject, just statical studies in general).

Expand full comment
Sarah's avatar

Apologies in advance if I'm being overly pedantic, but it isn't actually the tobacco that increases the likelihood of lung (and many other types) cancer, ya? It's the DNA-damaging benzene, polonium-210, benzo(a)pyrene (+ chromium), nitrosamines, and arsenic contained in cigarettes.

Overall enjoyed the article and appreciated the (apparently necessary for science-lovers to repeat constantly) reminder that science reporting often sucks hard and that it's good to take with a grain of salt until you can read the studies yourself, especially if you're looking at Seralini-style disingenuous bullshit "studies."

With respect (and no snark intended), I edit documents/books for a living and would be glad to proof things if desired. (Couple friendly examples: "This is the type of waves..." would be edited into "These are the types of waves..."; "...plenty of lifelong, multi-pack smokers that don’t..." would become "...plenty of lifelong, multi-pack smokers who don’t..."; and "Their body has plenty of time..." turns into "Their bodies have plenty of time...")

Expand full comment
353 more comments...

No posts