2 ms·
I mostly disagree. The average reader here is smart enough to read that headline, notice that part of it is quoted, and infer that the article states that some
by Bud 15y ago
I mostly disagree.
The average reader here is smart enough to read that headline, notice that part of it is quoted, and infer that the article states that some health authority has recently said that cell phone signals are about as dangerous as lead, etc.
The average reader is also more than smart enough to discern that the article is not, in fact, stating that cell phone radiation is the exact same thing as, say, lead. It's a bit ludicrous to even think that folks would assume this.
That said, I also prefer original headlines, as a rule.
- bxr 15y ago>and infer that the article states that some health authority has recently said that cell phone signals are about as dangerous as lead, etc. They would be inferring the wrong thing if they did that. When someone thinks of the dangers of lead, they think of lead poisoning, not lead as carcinogenic. The dangers of exhaust, asphyxiation not as a carcinogen. Chloroform? Kidneys and liver damage from too high a dose, not cancer.