they found a correlation. That's not the same as cause-and-effect. One strong factor that many
people overlook is socio-economic effects.
I agree with this but don't you think that the people carrying out the research thought about it ? The research
was done by reputable scientists, I know that doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes but it would
surprise me if they overlook stuff like that.
You haven't read many research papers, have you?
Check out the last two lines of the paper's abstract:
This is the first study describing an association between radiofrequency radiation exposure
and uveal melanoma. Several methodologic limitations prevent our results from providing clear evidence on the hypothesized
association.
In a nutshell, this says (1) we're the first ones to do the research and (2) we couldn't prove our hypothesis to begin with.
In other words, No valid conclusions may be drawn from the experiment!
This is a perfect example of the unfortunately common method of gathering a sizeable amount of data, performing some flashy statistical analysis, and publishing, ignoring the fact that there is little signal amongst the noise.
An unfortunate trend in science, primarily in this country, but apparently also found in Germany, is the lack of attention paid to research methodology. At the same time, the quality of scientific journals is decreasing more and more, so poorly done research is getting published more and more.
Add in incompetent and irresponsible journalism, and the end result is a bad article, a headline that is even worse and misleading Slashdot stories....
Quick question: What other reasons would the Federal govt have for developing a technology that can easily (if not quickly) monitor the environment, wastewater and (the important part)various harmful biological compounds (the clinical toxicology aspect)? Oh yeah, don't forget the industrial process monitoring...ie, specific chemical compounds.
What we're seeing here looks like a spinoff technology from some sort of bio/chemical warfare detection program. Not that I have a problem with that mind you. Just dont confuse it with out-of-the-blue governmental largesse.
You've hit on the exact reason why I'm not teaching anymore. I got tired of seeing schools trying to get blood from the proverbial stone while school boards continuously passed budgets that were always bigger, yet managed to actually get less and less to individual schools.
Wrong. Utterly and completely wrong.
In fact, one of the main problems in special ed these days is the overwhelming drive towards "inclusion," not away from it.
The legal concept is a "least restrictive environment", as set up by the American with Disabilities Act (the ADA of the early Clinton era) and other laws. This is where the whole trend towards mainstreaming special ed students into regular classrooms comes from. In most cases, this means students stay in a regular classroom and get sent out to other classrooms for assistance.
The result is that more and more teachers are being overwhelmed by students that they don't have the training, resources or time to deal with. We're talking kids on respirators, kids with trachiotomies that need cleaning every two hours, kids with Tourette's and so on. While the idea is sound, teacher selection and training is just not up to it.
That's not to say that some schools don't lump all of the kids with special needs into one classroom; they do. However, those kids are one federal suit away from being in a completely different situation.
There are also a number of programs for students that do need "life experience." I have seen some truly wonderful residential schools that worked. Of course, with education budgets getting slashed right and left, they aren't there this year.
Just a few words from a former special ed instructor...
Actually, they prevent the CIA from executing ops against American citizens in the US; foreign nationals are still valid legal targets. In theory, though, that falls under FBI's counter intelligence purview.
In practice, both sides (that is, CIA and FBI), step on each others toes on a regular basis.
There are several perhaps apocryphal FBI stories about surveilance operations that wound up having three or four various agencies watching each other watch the target. The Keystone Kops seem more competent at times....
While I'm dubious about desktop applications of this anytime soon, this could be the holy grail of
medical imaging and remote surgery. One of the greatest problems they came up with in the Army's tele-surgery experiments was the unexpected time sink of having to constantly magnify everything. The resolutions of the screens used was too course to see many blood vessels and the like at a glance.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with this but don't you think that the people carrying out the research thought about it ? The research was done by reputable scientists, I know that doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes but it would surprise me if they overlook stuff like that.
You haven't read many research papers, have you?
Check out the last two lines of the paper's abstract:
This is the first study describing an association between radiofrequency radiation exposure and uveal melanoma. Several methodologic limitations prevent our results from providing clear evidence on the hypothesized association.
In a nutshell, this says (1) we're the first ones to do the research and (2) we couldn't prove our hypothesis to begin with.
In other words, No valid conclusions may be drawn from the experiment!
This is a perfect example of the unfortunately common method of gathering a sizeable amount of data, performing some flashy statistical analysis, and publishing, ignoring the fact that there is little signal amongst the noise.
An unfortunate trend in science, primarily in this country, but apparently also found in Germany, is the lack of attention paid to research methodology. At the same time, the quality of scientific journals is decreasing more and more, so poorly done research is getting published more and more.
Add in incompetent and irresponsible journalism, and the end result is a bad article, a headline that is even worse and misleading Slashdot stories....
What we're seeing here looks like a spinoff technology from some sort of bio/chemical warfare detection program. Not that I have a problem with that mind you. Just dont confuse it with out-of-the-blue governmental largesse.
You've hit on the exact reason why I'm not teaching anymore. I got tired of seeing schools trying to get blood from the proverbial stone while school boards continuously passed budgets that were always bigger, yet managed to actually get less and less to individual schools.
Wrong. Utterly and completely wrong. In fact, one of the main problems in special ed these days is the overwhelming drive towards "inclusion," not away from it. The legal concept is a "least restrictive environment", as set up by the American with Disabilities Act (the ADA of the early Clinton era) and other laws. This is where the whole trend towards mainstreaming special ed students into regular classrooms comes from. In most cases, this means students stay in a regular classroom and get sent out to other classrooms for assistance. The result is that more and more teachers are being overwhelmed by students that they don't have the training, resources or time to deal with. We're talking kids on respirators, kids with trachiotomies that need cleaning every two hours, kids with Tourette's and so on. While the idea is sound, teacher selection and training is just not up to it. That's not to say that some schools don't lump all of the kids with special needs into one classroom; they do. However, those kids are one federal suit away from being in a completely different situation. There are also a number of programs for students that do need "life experience." I have seen some truly wonderful residential schools that worked. Of course, with education budgets getting slashed right and left, they aren't there this year. Just a few words from a former special ed instructor...
Actually, they prevent the CIA from executing ops against American citizens in the US; foreign nationals are still valid legal targets. In theory, though, that falls under FBI's counter intelligence purview. In practice, both sides (that is, CIA and FBI), step on each others toes on a regular basis. There are several perhaps apocryphal FBI stories about surveilance operations that wound up having three or four various agencies watching each other watch the target. The Keystone Kops seem more competent at times....
While I'm dubious about desktop applications of this anytime soon, this could be the holy grail of medical imaging and remote surgery. One of the greatest problems they came up with in the Army's tele-surgery experiments was the unexpected time sink of having to constantly magnify everything. The resolutions of the screens used was too course to see many blood vessels and the like at a glance.