Re #1: unless the full paper describes some kind of interesting new causation associated with background radiation, I find the methodology and conclusions absurd. The analogy is doing a large scale comparative analysis of a specific toxin where all measurements are orders of magnitude below well established toxic levels. If they showed that Port Hope, Ontario had lower cancer rates I’d pay attention.
Re #3: Related to your previous post, Elsevier’s business model is the result of the long established practice of academics giving away the copyright of their papers to the publishing journal. Mental health issues aside, this issue contributed significantly to the tragic suicide of Aaron Swartz.
degskisays:
@1 Indeed. Can easily be fact (statistically), while bearing no causal relationship whatsoever.
Re #1: unless the full paper describes some kind of interesting new causation associated with background radiation, I find the methodology and conclusions absurd. The analogy is doing a large scale comparative analysis of a specific toxin where all measurements are orders of magnitude below well established toxic levels. If they showed that Port Hope, Ontario had lower cancer rates I’d pay attention.
Re #3: Related to your previous post, Elsevier’s business model is the result of the long established practice of academics giving away the copyright of their papers to the publishing journal. Mental health issues aside, this issue contributed significantly to the tragic suicide of Aaron Swartz.
@1 Indeed. Can easily be fact (statistically), while bearing no causal relationship whatsoever.
We don’t know that Port Hope has lower cancer rates, but we know that it is roughly similar… http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/research/technical-papers-and-articles/2013/2013-ecological-study-cancer-port-hope-1992-2007.cfm