General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)I do know what Scientific American is:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)
The article doesn't state, and there's no link to the study. Some rats (like Sprague-Dawley) are naturally more prone to tumors. Even with this knowledge, many studies still use that particular strain of rat.
Scientific American isn't a science publication, it's just a pop-sci magazine.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)to show up on a search that was even close to legitimate.
They did admit it was inconclusive, but interesting, and they will be using mice next. No idea what kind of mice.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Just an article about a study. The article is useless without the actual data from the study. I never trust the media to get science right, because they never do.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)the study itself is behind a paywall somewhere and the synopsis they sent out was a plea for more funding.
The SciAm article tells us as much as we need to know about preliminary findings, unless you want to go off and do your own work on it.
And SciAm isn't perfect, but it's not Fox news.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)I don't get scientific information from pop science articles. I read the studies.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)conduct your own study, or just ignore the whole thing.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Sprague-Dawley rats. Flawed study. Figures.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I never trust the media to get science right, because they never do..."
I apply that to posters on DU as well... especially the ones implying how much about science they in fact, know. 
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And those who read pop-sci articles. I'd say those who actually read and understand the studies have a much better grasp than someone who just reads a reporter's bad interpretation of a study's abstract page.
Javaman
(65,711 posts)
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)
muriel_volestrangler
(106,212 posts)Yes, Sprague-Dawley rats are more prone to cancer; that's why they're used for studies, because rats have far shorter lives than humans, so you need them to be prone to cancer to get any meaningful results, especially in a useful timeframe.
To dismiss this as 'pop-sci' seems patronising and disingenuous. It's from the National Toxicology Program, a major federal program. The report is undergoing peer review - reviewers' comments are at the end of the paper.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Then that rat shouldn't be used in a study like this. That's one of the biggest flaws in the Seralini study. If this study on non-ionizing radiation (something that has existed LONG before cell phones) used that particular strain of rat, then it too would be a flawed study.
On edit: and of course, this study used sprague dawley rats. It's Seralini for cellphones.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)They are NOT a scientific publication by any means.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,212 posts)Your fixation with Scientific American shows either you are clueless about the media, or you really, really want to cover this up by any means possible. This is a scientific study. Scientific American is a publication that reported what the scientific study found. You pretended they didn't give a link, when they did, and you're still going on about their status, as if they wrote the report. You're ignoring the findings in favour of ad hominem bullshit against a publication that wrote about a study.
Whether this is a serious problem, I don't know; but, as a sceptic, I find your reaction (akin to a global warming denialist or tobacco manufacturer) makes me think we need a lot more investigation into this.
Seriously, if you want people to pay less attention to this, you shouldn't try so hard to cover it up.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)That is a huge flaw. I've now looked at the actual study. Non-ionizing radiation is not cancerous. Exposing rats who are going to grow tumors anyhow to non-ionizing radiation proves nothing.
As far as Scientific American goes, it's a pop sci magazine that reported on a flawed study. I wasn't fixating on the rag, I was stating that they left out pertinent information when reporting on the study, and I asked the person who posted the article for a link to the study. You provided the link, I read it. It's exactly what I thought it was. Flawed.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,212 posts)Yes, I trust the National Toxicology Program a lot more than an anonymous person on the internet, ie you. Your attempt to deflect from the study by still pretending that the status of Scientific American as a magazine that was linked to on DU is somehow relevant to the validity of the study is laughable. You claim "non-ionizing radiation is not cancerous"; that is, of course, bullshit: UVA radiation is cancerous, for example. This isn't UV, of course, but it shows you're either incredibly ignorant, or trying to lie to DU for some reason.
"Rats who are going to grow rumors anyhow" is a phrase showing, again, either incredible ignorance of the scientific method, or that you are bullshitting on purpose. The study used a control group, which were also Sprague Dawley rats.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)All I was asking for was the ACTUAL study, not the pop sci article. You provided it (link to the study). What is your hard on for the stupid magazine? The ACTUAL study is quite flawed, and I'm NOT the only one to point that out.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-a-rat-study-with-marginal-results-does-not-prove-that-cell-phones-cause-cancer-no-matter-what-mother-jones-and-consumer-reports-say/
muriel_volestrangler
(106,212 posts)proving you do 'give a fuck'. Scientific American provided the link; I was just pointing out you were wrong when you claimed they hadn't provided it.
It's a bit late for you to try to regain any credibility by trying to point out flaws in the study now; you showed that you were just interested in badmouthing the story in any way possible, including misleading DUers.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)I'm sorry I missed it. Once again, all I was after was the study. I don't care about pop-sci articles, regardless of the publication. I just want the actual study.
I pointed out the flaws in the study the instant I read the study. You're the one who keeps going on about the pop-sci publication.
SkyIsGrey
(378 posts)with the unidirectional TV station broadcast antenna and booster antennas.
Do you have WIFI?
Non-ionizing radiation:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation
Scientific
(314 posts)It's those dumbkofs who smoke them.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Everyone always misses that word, or just doesn't understand it. All they hear is "radiation".
SkyIsGrey
(378 posts)n.t.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)
GoneOffShore
(18,021 posts)
Avalux
(35,015 posts)First, there were three groups of 90 rats each; male, female, and control. There were not enough rats tested (sample size) to show a statistically significant difference that would conclusively attribute tumor growth to radiation exposure.
Second, the male group got more tumors than the females, yet the males lived longer.
The results of this study are interesting and more work needs to be done since the results show a "trend".
However - one cannot draw any conclusions from the results of this study. Just not enough rats tested and confounding results as well.