Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)

7. Why should either of us care? You know perfectly well that...

Reply to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #6)

Tue May 31, 2016, 10:46 AM

May 2016

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Cell phones (Microwaves a non-ionizing radiation) don't cause cancer. [View all] SkyIsGrey May 2016 OP

I have no idea who Rebecca Watson is, but... TreasonousBastard May 2016 #1

What kind of rats were used in the study? Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #3

No idea what rats, but the Sci Am article was one of the first... TreasonousBastard May 2016 #5

Still, there is no link to the actual study. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #6

Why should either of us care? You know perfectly well that... TreasonousBastard May 2016 #7

Because the details of the study are important. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #14

Then feel free to find the study on your own... TreasonousBastard May 2016 #19

I found the link. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #20

I apply that to posters on DU as well... LanternWaste May 2016 #15

Well, there's those of us who actually read the studies Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #17

... Javaman May 2016 #10

*snort* pinboy3niner May 2016 #11

Here's the link Scientific American gave: muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #13

If a rat is naturally more prone to tumors Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #16

Scientific American is pop sci. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #18

Yeah, you're doing your best as an apologist, aren't you? muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #21

The study used sprague-dawley rats Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #23

Scientific American provided the link; you are still attacking them for writing an article muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #25

I don't give a fuck about SA or their pop sci magazine. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #26

And yet, you continue with the ad hominem attacks against them muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #27

OK, well, I didn't see the link. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #28

TV broadcast is at 50Kw, or about 5Kw coming at your TV... SkyIsGrey May 2016 #8

Cigarettes don't cause cancer either Scientific May 2016 #2

Non-ionizing. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #4

Yep. SkyIsGrey May 2016 #9

Light bulbs, microwaves, radio, and furnaces = radiation :p MillennialDem May 2016 #12

Here are a couple more links about the sketchy study on this zombie science myth GoneOffShore May 2016 #22

I didn't watch the video, but I read the study published in Scientific American. A few things - Avalux May 2016 #24