3 ms·
I can't read the full study, as it's behind a paywall - so take this with a grain of salt: > "potentially as harmful" That's not 'defensive language', that's
by Aaron1011 9y ago
I can't read the full study, as it's behind a paywall - so take this with a grain of salt:
> "potentially as harmful"
That's not 'defensive language', that's rightly acknowledging that a single study isn't enough to determine one way or the other.
> "have as much potential to cause DNA damage"
What's 'unscientific' or 'defensive' about acknowledging that a substance has a certain probability of causing cell damage? Claiming that something 'always' or 'never' causes cell damage, on the other hand, would be unscientific.
- mistermann 9y ago> that's rightly acknowledging that a single study isn't enough to determine one way or the other When read by a scientist, when read by mainstream consumers it is historically referred to as FUD. > "have as much potential to cause DNA damage" "potential" vs "as much potential"....so how are they measuring the level of potential? Since this is new technology, is it even proven accurate (cast is doubt elsewhere in the document). This article implies certainty, but of course never states it outright, but it achieves its goal: instill fear. And in this case, that fear can affect sales in the hundreds if not billions of dollars, and might(!) literally be the the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.