tvashtarkatena Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Nope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) Nope Your article is "dross." Alternative viewpoint linky Nationalist, dead-ender, service goon. Edited June 6, 2011 by E-rock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 WHEW, THAT'S A RELIEF! GLAD WE CAN PUT THIS ONE TO REST!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 WHEW, THAT'S A RELIEF! GLAD WE CAN PUT THIS ONE TO REST!!! Here comes the goon squad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following your point without pictures of dead kids. Could you post some? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 The article is persuasive to this non-expert, yet I wonder what caused "A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as "possibly carcinogenic to humans." possibly carcinogenic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Welcome to the wonderful world of memory based study bias. "I'm on my phone 12 hours a day!" Um...no you're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 The number of scientists and countries doesn't mean much if the study methodology is fundamentally flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I heard cell phones cause autism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 It's not a study. It's a synthesis of all peer-reviewed studies on the topic. Apparently the 31 experts that made up the panel disagreed to some extent with the author of the NYT article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 A meta study is a form of study. But hey, you're a scientist, so you knew that. VISUALIZE YOURSELF AS THE SMARTEST KID IN THE ROOM. Apparently, the 'possible' label applies to even the weakest result. Still, this will kick off a whole raft of 'shielding' products - so there should be a little job creation going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Well, first off, a systematic review IS a type of "study." In medicine, they are very common. Anyway, the value of systematic reviews is highly variable, since there are no common standards for such studies, and research teams often do not perform extended research. I'd like to see the publish article, including their objectives and methods. Do you have a link to the actual study as published by the team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 http://www.sarshield.com/ "Electromagnetic radiation EMF has been proven to be harmful. SAR Shield is the only cellular radiation shield to be tested using FCC SAR testing protocols. Safety is accomplished by dissipating deadly cancer causing electromagnetic radiation by up to 89%. Eliminate the dangers today!" No overstatement there, boy! LOVE THAT FREE MARKET. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Oh god.... Tin foil hat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Christ... “I noticed immediately that my phone no longer gets hot.” Lynn Dellapasta, Olmsted Twp., Ohio “I normally wear the Blackberry pager on my left hip side clipped to my belt. My lower left leg was hurting … since putting [Free]shield into my cell phone, the pain literally started going away the next day and been pain free since. What a surprise!” - Gary Roush, Federal Way, Washington “Without FreeShield my cell phone would always get hot, plus I could feel the heat in my head. Now that I have put the FreeShield on my phone, I not longer feel the heat or negative energy.” - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I suspect you can call a literature review whatever you want as long you are clear that it doesn't bring new knowledge to the table. I tried to find it on the WHO site to no avail but I didn't spend much time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 OMG! Cell phones mess with your custard, too!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.