General Discussion

muriel_volestrangler

(106,223 posts)

25. Scientific American provided the link; you are still attacking them for writing an article

Tue May 31, 2016, 02:50 PM

May 2016

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.

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