3 ms·
"Why, for instance, did only male rats show increased tumor rates, and not females?" Hmm, was this pre-registered? Wee bit p-hacking? I can't find the answer i
by dash2 9y ago
"Why, for instance, did only male rats show increased tumor rates, and not females?"
Hmm, was this pre-registered? Wee bit p-hacking? I can't find the answer in the paper.
Hmm, though I did find this interesting nugget: "At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of
23 males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR." Anyone want to venture a post hoc explanation?
- scarlac 9y ago> Anyone want to venture a post hoc explanation? The results are too weak and they're searching too hard for results. That's not to say the study itself is "wrong" just that they're motivated to find an issue to get published and media coverage, not to say "oh, it's fine". The entire article can be summed up with the quote: > Final results from the peer-reviewed study won't be released until at least the end of 2017. Cellphone cancer studies are not in short supply. What we need is peer-reviewed reproducible studies.
- red75prime 9y agoThermoregulation reduced metabolic rate thanks to additional thermal energy input, leading to slightly higher lifespans? Pure unfounded speculation, of course.
- baobrien 9y agoIt looks like the control group just didn't survive for quite as long as this particular strain of rats usually do. Probably just a statistical fluke with the seemingly small (to a non-biologist) sample size. From 'Conclusions': >The survival of the control group of male rats in the current study (28%) was relatively low compared to other recent NTP studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley ® SD ® (Harlan) rats (average 47%, range 24-72%).