For all print & online journalism
:sunglasses: 33.3 % 😯 33.3 % 😟 33.3 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#548418
Probably wasn't a massive uptick in lung cancer 15-20 years after people started smoking fags either. Dosage makes the poison. Animal experiments involving accelerated dosage have given statistically significant results though. Does it present a substantial risk to human health at regular dosage? The jury is out. It would be foolish to suppose that because people aren't doing in the streets we'll all be grand.

Honestly, this is very basic stuff.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#548423
MisterMuncher wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:36 pm
Probably wasn't a massive uptick in lung cancer 15-20 years after people started smoking fags either. Dosage makes the poison. Animal experiments involving accelerated dosage have given statistically significant results though. Does it present a substantial risk to human health at regular dosage? The jury is out. It would be foolish to suppose that because people aren't doing in the streets we'll all be grand.

Honestly, this is very basic stuff.
Let's look at what Cancer Research has to say shall we?


https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about- ... ower-lines
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#548425
Indeed. Let's. Emphasis added.
So far, the scientific evidence shows it is unlikely that mobile phones could increase the risk of brain tumours, or any other type of cancer. But we do not know enough to completely rule out a risk.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified mobile phones for the first time in their 'gold-standard' rating system. They said the devices could 'possibly' cause cancer in humans (group 2B), but there wasn't enough evidence to come to a clear conclusion
Any. Fucking. Questions?

The Guardian article is specifically about the possibility that PR and money is acting to suppress non-trivial studies on the subject. At no point does it actually support the conclusion.

You read as well as you write.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#548426
The Guardian article is specifically about the possibility that PR and money is acting to suppress non-trivial studies on the subject. At no point does it actually support the conclusion.

You read as well as you write.

So why is it headlined the inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones? The clear implication is that they do believe this to be the case. Also as article in the New Scientist points out.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... ng-cancer/
This is not surprising, given that there is no obvious reason why mobile phones would cause cancer. High-energy electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays can directly damage DNA, but the low-energy radiation from phones does not.

In theory, of course, there could be mechanisms we don’t yet know about. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer is taking a cautious approach, listing mobiles phones as “possibly carcinogenic” in 2011.

But perhaps the biggest reason not to worry is that if using mobile phones greatly increased the risk of cancer, we should already be seeing a huge jump in the incidence of cancer, and that simply does not seem to be happening. Some studies have reported a small increase in certain cancer types, including acoustic neuromas, but this is usually attributed to increased diagnosis rates thanks to MRI scanning.

What’s more, brain tumours are thankfully rare. Fewer than 20 out of every million people will develop acoustic neuromas, for instance. Even if it was the case that heavy cellphone doubles the risk of tumours, the overall risk would still very low.
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#548427
That's your inference on the headline, chap. The sub-head and the article clarify the point being made rather well. Confirmation bias is a thing. Perhaps you might look into it.

Still, though, you've progressed from saying this was what the article was about to that it was your particular reading of the headline. Progress I suppose.

Prepared to admit your comparison to the Wakefield shit-show was overblown and fundamentally wrong-headed?
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#548428
MisterMuncher wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 11:47 pm
That's your inference on the headline, chap. The sub-head and the article clarify the point being made rather well. Confirmation bias is a thing. Perhaps you might look into it.

Still, though, you've progressed from saying this was what the article was about to that it was your particular reading of the headline. Progress I suppose.

Prepared to admit your comparison to the Wakefield shit-show was overblown and fundamentally wrong-headed?
No, have you read the New Scientist article I linked to?
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#548430
Really because this is what the article stated.
But perhaps the biggest reason not to worry is that if using mobile phones greatly increased the risk of cancer, we should already be seeing a huge jump in the incidence of cancer, and that simply does not seem to be happening. Some studies have reported a small increase in certain cancer types, including acoustic neuromas, but this is usually attributed to increased diagnosis rates thanks to MRI scanning.
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#548432
And, again, as per the Guardian article, the evidence and latest research shows this might not be the case, and further investigation is certainly justified and maybe necessary.

This is how science works, and it really doesn't matter what authority you attempt to argue from if the evidence says different. It really doesn't help that you appear to have ignored the content of the "offending" article in favour of something you've made up based on your reading of the headline.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#548450
MisterMuncher wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:14 am
And, again, as per the Guardian article, the evidence and latest research shows this might not be the case, and further investigation is certainly justified and maybe necessary.

This is how science works, and it really doesn't matter what authority you attempt to argue from if the evidence says different. It really doesn't help that you appear to have ignored the content of the "offending" article in favour of something you've made up based on your reading of the headline.
As this article points out that article which first appeared in The Nation isn't all its cracked up to be.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/04 ... es-cancer/
Far more frequently than I’d like it to be necessary, I find myself writing about various health fear mongering about cell phones and wifi. The idea that the radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation used by cell phones and wireless networks is somehow causing horrendous health effects in humans, be it cancer (brain, breast, or other), behavioral problems, mental illness, or whatever is, like antivaccine pseudoscience, a claim not supported by evidence that just will not go away. Indeed, some take it a step further, inventing a syndrome called “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” in which certain people are especially sensitive to the claimed adverse health effects due to radio waves. It doesn’t help, either, that organizations like the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) erroneously categorized cell phone radiation as a “possible carcinogen” or that the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) wasted $25 million on a study of cell phone radiation in rats that, at the time of a partial report of its results for gliomas and cardiac schwannomas, had produced singularly unconvincing results for a link between cell phones and cancer, but it produced sensationalistic headlines claiming a link. As of last month, the full study has shown no more convincing evidence. As Dr. Christopher Labos explained last week, the results are most consistent with random noise. It’s even gotten to the point where some have tried to label smart watches as dangerous.

The latest magazine to publish a sensationalistic story about cell phones is The Nation. Amusingly, someone in The Nation‘s PR department thought it would be a good idea to send me a link a week ago, as though I might blog about it. Of course, I’m happy to oblige, because this story is an example of much of what is wrong with reporting on the issue of cell phones and health effects due to cell phone radiation. Written by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie and entitled “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation.” Its tagline? The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout. The basic thesis of the article is that “big wireless” is a lot like “big tobacco” in hiding the science or preventing definitive science from being done because, presumably, it has something to hide. It’s the very same sort of argument that antivaxers like to make about big pharma and vaccines, likening vaccine manufacturers to big tobacco and claiming the same sort of disinformation campaign that big tobacco waged for decades to hide, minimize, and obfuscate the emerging scientific evidence of the harm cigarette smoking was causing through causing lung cancer, heart disease, and a variety of other diseases.
 
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
#550562
From me, with love: the lost art of letter writing
26Nov 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... er-writing
Are we losing the art of telephone conversation?
3 Aug 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-lost-art

(Some time in the future when human brains can be connected wirelessly to the Internet)
Are we losing the art of smartphone usage?
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#555164
Hope The Guardian can uninvite Mendoza here.



Cue lots of "at least the Canary don't print lots of anti-Corbyn propaganda". Nah, just Russian and Syrian propaganda.

And anyway, even if you don't like lots of the Guardian political commentary, there's far more to it than that. It reports news, breaks news stories. Bit different to the Canary.
  • 1
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Quite incredible. https://twitter.com/nicktolhur[…]

Labour, Generally.

The fears are fuelled by the party’s worsen[…]

Boris Johnson

You know when you wake up on a cold grey wet Octob[…]

Peter Hitchens

I think I'm repeating a point somebody already mad[…]