Camelot One Premium,MVM join:2001-11-21 Austin, TX kudos:1
Don't you just love bad science?
Where is the science in this study? They looked at people who already had cancer rather than monitoring high cell phone usage to see what percentage developed cancer. They concluded that because a high number of those with brain tumors used their cell phones a lot that the cell phone must have caused the cancer?
I could just as easily conclude that cancer caused higher cell phone use. (I know if I were diagnosed with a brain tumor, I'd probably be calling my family more)
Or that living in Sweden causes brain tumors.
You can't call it science without doing a little science. -- AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 4x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler
Refreshing comment! So many of these types of studies appear to be aimed at creating a set of data that supports what they want to "prove", when even a cursory examination of the "test group" shows the obvious flaw..."junk-science" at its best!
This is precisely how the sugar industry threw a scare into folks about artificial sweeteners...
Did'ja know that 100% of all folks who ate meat between the years of 1800 to 1850 are dead today? This "proves" that meat is bad for you! -- ...something is happening here but you don't know what it is...do you, Mr. Jones?
reply to Camelot One It's called a "case control" study; statistically, they're basically reversing the independent and dependent variables. Of course, idiot reporters like to report them the wrong way around; the study really shows that cancer patients are 2.4 times more likely than the control groups to have used a cell phone, not that cell phone users are 2.4 times more likely to get cancer. You have to use Bayes Theorem to reverse the numbers properly, to get predicted increase of risk for cell phone users.
·
·
This "proves" that meat is bad for you!