Slashdot Mirror

There was a report published a few years ago by a website called 'Sense about science'... much more informative about radiation than the daily news. Now if only the public would read it...

(*) Counterexamples welcome...

It's funny that, for all the bitching and moaning alternative medicine practitioners do about how Evil Big Pharma is censoring them and all the ridiculously easy and cheap (but not free, natch) ways they have to cure cancer/AIDS/diabetes/arthritis/ect., they're the ones doing the suing. These quacks are hypocritical and pseudoscientific as they prey on the desperate and ignorant. I guess if you're going to be an asshole who values money more than human life you might as well go all the way.

Those interested in keeping libel laws out of science should check out this site. (Posting AC to canel out some dumbass's troll mod).

Cue UK government announcing multi billion plan to make the internet 'safe' with new content filtering, anti-filesharing and communication logging schemes in 5... 4... 3...

Someone obviously does not keep up with current events. Most UK ISP's already filter content to keep the world safe from kiddie porn and 70's album covers.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation
http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/05/features/the-hidden-censors-of-the-internet.aspx

Couple that with Libel laws that are routinely used as a method of silencing what should be protected as free speech:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/334
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/14/law.unitednations
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/29/1411207

This results in a country where they have no need to bring in any draconian laws, since they have been here for some time.

(Full Disclosure - I am a British citizen and resident)

Er, the Daily Mail is a bad choice of news outlet if you want accurate science reporting - it's well known for sensationalist stories of every kind, and has a bad track record in hyping medical research. Recently, they were uncritically quoting an 'expert' saying that autism is caused by (undefined) toxins, and they're a regular presence in Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, like in this article.

"Why should I allow my body or my children to be filled with man-made chemicals, when I don't know what the health effects of these substances will be."

I think this is a reasonable and well rounded comment. She doesn't say all chemical are bad, she doesn't even say all ''man-made chemicals' are bad. She exercises a health scepticism and an implied demand for more information.

I think the BBC using her comment is a poor example. It _is_ entirely consistent with what the expert says and good of example of what Sense About Science are trying to achieve. That Celebrities have been asked to check their facts before lending support to scientific research and campaigns, rather than risk misleading people.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/

Not sure why this wasn't in the BBC article...