If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Crunch)   Headline: Study links cell phone radiation to cancer in mice. FTA: "The negative results clearly indicate that cell phone RFR is not carcinogenic"   ( techcrunch.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, cell phone, Cancer, Mobile phone, cell phone RFR, Wavelength, Frequency, Mouse, Equivocal evidence  
•       •       •

665 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Feb 2018 at 1:43 AM (24 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



13 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-02-02 08:13:04 PM  
More interested in how they got the mice to use phones, and WHO DID THEY CALL???
 
2018-02-02 09:10:07 PM  
If i'm interpreting this "article" correctly, if you blast rats with thousands of times more radiation than the typical cell phone user receives, there's still no definitive statistical or mechanistic link between exposure and cancer development, yet some rats did develop cancers that humans have been known get from time to time, and therefore OOGA-BOOGA-BOOGA?
 
2018-02-02 09:55:05 PM  
what the hell are you getting at subby?

the article is about questioning the study.

that's not how this type of headline works.

/try hard some more and one day you'll get it
 
2018-02-03 01:47:06 AM  
Yeah, you can't sell negative results. My fast wont  raise negative results, as I have to keep it up for the month.
 
2018-02-03 03:09:53 AM  
A recent "study" also determined birds give warning cries.
 
2018-02-03 09:00:34 AM  

colinspooky: More interested in how they got the mice to use phones, and WHO DID THEY CALL???


Duh
 
2018-02-03 09:27:08 AM  
An interesting side note is that the radiation-exposed rodents of both types lived significantly longer than their control peers: 28 percent of the original control group survived the full 2 years, while about twice that amount (48-68 percent) survived in the exposed group.
Two explanations are proffered for this strange result: either the radiation somehow suppressed the "chronic progressive nephropathy" that these mice tend to suffer from as they age, or possibly reduced feed intake related to the radiation might have done it. Either way, no one is suggesting that the radiation is somehow salutary to the rodents' constitutions.


Why not?
 
2018-02-03 09:46:07 AM  

MayoBoy: colinspooky: More interested in how they got the mice to use phones, and WHO DID THEY CALL???

Duh


duh, indeed - so obvious
 
2018-02-03 10:44:31 AM  

SwiftFox: An interesting side note is that the radiation-exposed rodents of both types lived significantly longer than their control peers: 28 percent of the original control group survived the full 2 years, while about twice that amount (48-68 percent) survived in the exposed group.
Two explanations are proffered for this strange result: either the radiation somehow suppressed the "chronic progressive nephropathy" that these mice tend to suffer from as they age, or possibly reduced feed intake related to the radiation might have done it. Either way, no one is suggesting that the radiation is somehow salutary to the rodents' constitutions.

Why not?


It sure looks like the case. Would they just stutter "b-b-but radiation BAD?!"
 
2018-02-03 12:03:16 PM  
mice != rats
 
2018-02-03 11:55:45 PM  

poorjon: If i'm interpreting this "article" correctly, if you blast rats with thousands of times more radiation than the typical cell phone user receives, there's still no definitive statistical or mechanistic link between exposure and cancer development, yet some rats did develop cancers that humans have been known get from time to time, and therefore OOGA-BOOGA-BOOGA?


Yes.  And it got clicks so therefore the 'writer' wins.
 
2018-02-04 02:45:02 AM  

colinspooky: More interested in how they got the mice to use phones, and WHO DID THEY CALL???


Ghostbusters?
 
2018-02-04 10:59:54 AM  
Wow subby fails reading comprehension and creates a fake headline of his own. FTA:

it is difficult to definitively conclude that these negative results clearly indicate that cell phone RFR is not carcinogenic

I know that sentence is hard to sort through, subby, but it says the opposite of your headline once you remove the beginning stem. I'll translate:

We can't be absolutely certain that cell phone RFR is not carcinogenic.

In other words

Cell phone RFR might be carcinogenic.

Also, the "negative results" they refer to are not from this study; they are other studies that couldn't show a cause-and-effect relationship between the radiation and location of tumors in mice. Hence, even though there was a correlation between radiation and tumors, they didn't show causation, therefore a "negative result"

There was an old cartoon where a movie reviewer called a movie " a great big piece of crap masquerading as art" and the movie ad quoted him as calling it "a great...piece of....art"

That should be subby's new job.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report