3 ms·
I’ve been following these studies for awhile. The biggest red flag for me is that the effect is constrained to male rates. This is exactly the sort of result yo
by smohare 8y ago
I’ve been following these studies for awhile. The biggest red flag for me is that the effect is constrained to male rates. This is exactly the sort of result you expect to see when not sufficiently controlling for multiple statistical analyses (i.e., unintentional p-hacking). I suspect a Bayesian approach with an appropriate prior on sex-sensitive biological cancer effects would not yield statistically significant results.
Some other broad concerns are outlined here: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/that-rat-cellphone-study-im-still-not-impressed/ https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/that-rat-cellp...
- sathackr 8y agoOr that the rats, who were exposed to lower amounts of RF, were the ones that developed cancer attributable to the RF, but mice, who were exposed to higher levels of RF, did not show a statistically significant increase.
- buboard 8y agoclinical and research studies typically use male rats to control for the effects of hormonal changes etc.
- learc83 8y agoThey used female rats as well in this study. That's not what happened here.
- hwillis 8y agoAlso, exposed rats happen to live longer -> rats die of old-age diseases, particularly cancer.