‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Things that apparently cause cancer

211 points · 78 comments · timpera

  1. hatthew · · focus · HN ↗
    Did I miss it, or do the authors not bother to explain how the original methodology is wrong? Do we just take their word for it?
    1. amluto · · focus · HN ↗
      Not that I can see. They claim to have reverse engineered the methodology, but they have not obviously published what they came up with. They also have no explanation as to why they can find positive correlations with all kinds of locations but no negative correlations with anything.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.