Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (added 'spin' study) |
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (updated spin link) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Others to look out for are <nowiki>'might', ''probably', 'could' and all the usual suspects. It isn't uncommon to read X probably causes Y, but on reading the full text find out that it's not actually possible to tell, or even sometimes that in fact, it probably doesn'</nowiki>t. Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't acceptable, particularly for trusted health organisations/professionals. | Others to look out for are <nowiki>'might', ''probably', 'could' and all the usual suspects. It isn't uncommon to read X probably causes Y, but on reading the full text find out that it's not actually possible to tell, or even sometimes that in fact, it probably doesn'</nowiki>t. Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't acceptable, particularly for trusted health organisations/professionals. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 47: | Line 49: | ||
There is information on this page [[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]] Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none. | There is information on this page [[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]] Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none. | ||
=== Confusing use of numbers === | === Confusing use of numbers === | ||
| Line 63: | Line 66: | ||
=== Presenting results of chemical analysis without comparison to exposure levels that may cause harm, or legal limits for workplace exposure. === | === Presenting results of chemical analysis without comparison to exposure levels that may cause harm, or legal limits for workplace exposure. === | ||
Analytical techniques such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy can detect tiny quantities of compounds in a sample, Limits Of Detection are becoming lower as electronics and computing increase in power and efficiency. Equipment manufacturers compete with each other to detect tinier, and tinier levels. This is a good thing for the most part, as anything that is present no matter how tiny the amount will be detected. However this can be a problem too. | Analytical techniques such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy can detect tiny quantities of compounds in a sample, Limits Of Detection are becoming lower as electronics and computing increase in power and efficiency. Equipment manufacturers compete with each other to detect tinier, and tinier levels. This is a good thing for the most part, as anything that is present no matter how tiny the amount will be detected. However this can be a problem too. | ||
They focus more on the fact that nanoscopic quantities where discovered, and completely forget to compare the amounts with something sensible (like permitted workplace exposure limits) presumably because their data would be 'lost in the weeds' in comparison. | They focus more on the fact that nanoscopic quantities where discovered, and completely forget to compare the amounts with something sensible (like permitted workplace exposure limits) presumably because their data would be 'lost in the weeds' in comparison. | ||
edits