[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 113 KB, 646x667, shinjyo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10714131 No.10714131[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>stop discussing science on /sci/

THE ABSOLUTE STATE

>> No.10714136
File: 172 KB, 1946x1178, hierarchy-of-evidence2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10714136

>>10714131
>hurrr durrr industry shills are spamming /sci/!!!
>proceeds to spam /sci/
The absolute cope

>> No.10714141
File: 540 KB, 1415x786, 52.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10714141

>>10714136
still butthurt about the NTP study?

>> No.10714148

>>10714141
>inbred lab rats get cancer
More news at 11, now run along and make another thread ;)
https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/lab-rats-cancer.htm

>> No.10714154
File: 22 KB, 245x305, 86.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10714154

>>10714148
the tumor responses associated with exposure to RF (gliomas and schwannomas of the heart) were not detected in controls. Gliomas and schwannomas of the heart are uncommon tumors that occur rarely in control Sprague-Dawley rats. It is not unusual to observe a zero incidence of uncommon tumors in groups of 50-90 control rats. The most important control group in an experimental study is the concurrent control group.

>> No.10714157
File: 123 KB, 1200x900, potatogroyper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10714157

>>10714154
>Sprague-Dawley rats
jej, now post how many watts per kilogram they were exposed to so I can laugh at your shit study before the thread gets nuked again

>> No.10714161
File: 33 KB, 300x367, 1442741608837.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10714161

>>10714157
>the rats were exposed to high levels

This statement misrepresents risk to the brain from the whole-body exposures used in the NTP study. While the exposure limit to RF radiation in the US is 0.08 W/kg averaged over the whole body, the localized exposure limit is 1.6 W/kg averaged over any one gram of tissue. Body tissues located nearest to the cell phone antenna receive much higher exposures than tissues located distant from the antenna. Thus, when an individual uses a cell phone and holds it next to his or her head, exposure to the brain will be much higher than exposures averaged over the whole body. When considering organ-specific risk (e.g., risk to the brain) from cell phone RF, the important measure of exposure is the SAR value of 1.6 W/kg averaged over any gram of tissue. In the NTP study in which animals were exposed to whole-body RF at SARs of 1.5, 3, and 6.0 W/kg, exposures in the brain were within 10% of the whole-body exposure levels. Therefore, in the NTP study, exposure intensities in the brain of rats were similar to or only slightly higher than localized human exposures from cell phones held next to the head.