Recently, the National Toxicology Program (part of the US Department of Health and Human Services) put out new data showing that High Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation is Linked to Tumor Activity in Male Rats . This is the type of waves that cell phones emit. An
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).
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...")
I still have a land line as it's bundled with my DSL internet service. And I'm not switching as everyone with the alternative from the cable company bitches about. (Why is it that for most people, the only choice for internet service is going with the phone company or the cable company? What, did used car salesmen have higher ethical standards?
This is fantastic - this is literally the first news story I've seen on this study that got it right! And that's really sad. Welcome Carlos - always good to have a numerate journalist around!
The internal organs weren't transparent, but the bones and muscles were. We thought about that too, but nope. The compound we used (methylazoxymethanol acetate) causes some pretty nasty tumors, very quickly.
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).
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...")
Just saw this. It would be great if you want to proof my stuff before I post! Drop me a line at CarlosSagan2018@gmail.com. Gracias!
Thanks you Carlos, a voice of reason in the wilderness.
Trained in Molecular Physiology, myself, and I can't stand clickbait non-science either. Don't even get me started on the IARC.
As any oncologist can tell you Shawarmas are derived from Shawarm Cells. I guess that means Tahini can mutate into Tahomas.
even if it's p<.05 this could be that one time in twenty when it looks significant by chance.
I still have a land line as it's bundled with my DSL internet service. And I'm not switching as everyone with the alternative from the cable company bitches about. (Why is it that for most people, the only choice for internet service is going with the phone company or the cable company? What, did used car salesmen have higher ethical standards?
This is fantastic - this is literally the first news story I've seen on this study that got it right! And that's really sad. Welcome Carlos - always good to have a numerate journalist around!
Having had a super bug infection, yeah, that shit's scary.
The internal organs weren't transparent, but the bones and muscles were. We thought about that too, but nope. The compound we used (methylazoxymethanol acetate) causes some pretty nasty tumors, very quickly.
Gotta love a piece that ends with a Hitchhiker's Guide reference.
I was just kidding anyway!
Good read, Carlos.Your Disqus profile needs a really geeky nerdy scientisty avatar.May I suggest a recent one of mine? https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Well to paraphrase Meat Loaf "Three out of five ain't baaaad"
Pizza is super healthy, right? :-)
Or just what the hell is going on with the jet stream lately
Hola Carlos. Quick follow up question:
I carry my iPhone in the front pocket of my pants. It's always on. Is that gunna be a problem for Mr. Stiffy and the Boys?