US FDA to review wireless phone safety
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=uri:2006-04-06T164555Z_01_N061368_RTRUKOC_0_US-FDA-CELLPHONES.xml
Informant: Iris Atzmon
--------
Note that, as usual, the FDA refer to findings of ill-health effects from mobile phone technology as "difficult to interpret". You bet theyy're difficult to interpret - they pose the ultimate difficulty of compromising the financially highly lucrative mobile comms industry, with knock-on adverse effexts on gov't.
"Difficult to interpret", in any other sense, is a load of bollo - er, nonsense. ANY scientific data can be interpreted in terms of its findings. The only difficulty here is that it doesn't fit the game-plan of those doing the interpreting. It's a clear sign that those in authority are losing their grip when the best they can do is such a pitifully thin excuse for not facing up to scientific facts. They don't seem to have any difficulty in interpreting results of studies supporting their view that there's no risk - even when such studies are riddled with self-contradictory and unscientific assertions.
The one thing that's NOT difficult to interpret is the clearly biased position of those falling over themselves to write off any study that doesn't suit their purpose.
Grahame
... and a bit of a parallel with the London drug trial that "went wrong". ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LDTC.php )
Preferential believing (or attention) easily pushes you over the border of "not knowing what you don't know" (ignorance of ignorance). I heard David Gee who edited "Late lessons from early warnings": ( http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/en/tab_abstract_RLR ) demonstrate the fragility of science that ignores the uncertain, because it is a sign not of lack of certainty, but also of the unknown, and indeed of the unknowable parts of reality.
For regular science, reality is a construct, a room x by y, and if the furniture doesn't fit it's thrown out; rather than seeing that the construct is too small.
Many great leaps in science, understanding, knowledge, what you will, came from observant people spotting the little things that didn't fit: the wobble in a a distant planet, the variation in a simple experiment ...
Andy
From Tetra/mastsanity
--------
Increase in brain cancer risk from using a mobile or cordless phone for over 5 years
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1529585/
Informant: Iris Atzmon
--------
Note that, as usual, the FDA refer to findings of ill-health effects from mobile phone technology as "difficult to interpret". You bet theyy're difficult to interpret - they pose the ultimate difficulty of compromising the financially highly lucrative mobile comms industry, with knock-on adverse effexts on gov't.
"Difficult to interpret", in any other sense, is a load of bollo - er, nonsense. ANY scientific data can be interpreted in terms of its findings. The only difficulty here is that it doesn't fit the game-plan of those doing the interpreting. It's a clear sign that those in authority are losing their grip when the best they can do is such a pitifully thin excuse for not facing up to scientific facts. They don't seem to have any difficulty in interpreting results of studies supporting their view that there's no risk - even when such studies are riddled with self-contradictory and unscientific assertions.
The one thing that's NOT difficult to interpret is the clearly biased position of those falling over themselves to write off any study that doesn't suit their purpose.
Grahame
... and a bit of a parallel with the London drug trial that "went wrong". ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LDTC.php )
Preferential believing (or attention) easily pushes you over the border of "not knowing what you don't know" (ignorance of ignorance). I heard David Gee who edited "Late lessons from early warnings": ( http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/en/tab_abstract_RLR ) demonstrate the fragility of science that ignores the uncertain, because it is a sign not of lack of certainty, but also of the unknown, and indeed of the unknowable parts of reality.
For regular science, reality is a construct, a room x by y, and if the furniture doesn't fit it's thrown out; rather than seeing that the construct is too small.
Many great leaps in science, understanding, knowledge, what you will, came from observant people spotting the little things that didn't fit: the wobble in a a distant planet, the variation in a simple experiment ...
Andy
From Tetra/mastsanity
--------
Increase in brain cancer risk from using a mobile or cordless phone for over 5 years
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1529585/
Starmail - 7. Apr, 19:09
