4 ms·

No, I didn't till your post. Just read a bit about him. Meh. He seems un-stupid and to have started out with things a bit later than me. I don't really evaluate

No, I didn't till your post. Just read a bit about him. Meh. He seems un-stupid and to have started out with things a bit later than me. I don't really evaluate peoples social standing. Bad measures are bad measures. @dekhn I might note that you don't really know who I am. Nobody does. I wouldn't call my statements "worked up by his apparent misuse of radioactivity-detecting instruments" I would call them reasonable statements of someone who gets pissed off by FUD. Can you [or HE] explain to me how this is not FUD?

dekhn 5y ago
I'm not sure what you think is FUD in the post. All the statements about radiation and health are approximately correct. They don't attempt to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt- quite the opposite, they attempt to avoid doing so. Could you be clearer about what you think the actual problem is? Is it just that his readings are in the noise of the sensor? Or his health claims? Something else?
- rikeanimer 5y ago
  Of course: The problem is that the data is presented to the observer as something that is within the measurement spectrum. It is not. The graphs show simply noise within the expected spectrum of noise for both the Montana and San Francisco data. Next there is some statement about increased cancer risk which doesn't really reference anything at all but on first blush seems intended to reference then difference between the montana/SF data. The data between both of those graphs if within the noise and we have little information on under what circumstances it was taken [and this is in addition to the fact that it is just noise!] The authors first statement that "it probably means nothing" does nothing to excuse the fact that most viewers will likely view it as as something especially given the comments that follow. FUD.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Seemed to me more like making gentle fun of people who can't tell the difference between noise and signal.

dekhn 5y ago

I'm not sure what you think is FUD in the post. All the statements about radiation and health are approximately correct. They don't attempt to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt- quite the opposite, they attempt to avoid doing so. Could you be clearer about what you think the actual problem is? Is it just that his readings are in the noise of the sensor? Or his health claims? Something else?

rikeanimer 5y ago
Of course: The problem is that the data is presented to the observer as something that is within the measurement spectrum. It is not. The graphs show simply noise within the expected spectrum of noise for both the Montana and San Francisco data. Next there is some statement about increased cancer risk which doesn't really reference anything at all but on first blush seems intended to reference then difference between the montana/SF data. The data between both of those graphs if within the noise and we have little information on under what circumstances it was taken [and this is in addition to the fact that it is just noise!] The authors first statement that "it probably means nothing" does nothing to excuse the fact that most viewers will likely view it as as something especially given the comments that follow. FUD.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Seemed to me more like making gentle fun of people who can't tell the difference between noise and signal.