‹ 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. roenxi · · focus · HN ↗
      There is a quote in the article suggesting that they don't understand why the method is failing [0] because if they completely understood the mathematics they wouldn't say it. But their argument is that the results are obviously stupid for 2 reasons. Which is sufficient to stop looking. If they are correct on those two points then the method is faulty.

      1) If applied to any landmark, that landmark causes significant cancer deaths.

      2) The result is impossible because these people aren't exposed to anything from the nuclear power plants. The average nuclear plant is a remarkably environmentally-friendly thing.

      [0] "There is, in fact, a real chance that you simply cannot get a negative result from this method."

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.