• Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 day ago

      Excellent breakdown of flaws, this one is the most damning to me:

      Cancer sites are not considered. Exposure to radionuclide pollution from Uranium fission products is known to be associated with specific tumors (thyroid cancer, lung cancer, leukemia) due to the chemical nature of the products of its decay chain (radioactive isotopes of Iodine, Radon, Cesium). Stratifying by tumor site would have provided evidence to support the assumption that tumors are caused by radiation exposure.

      Who cares if you find more bladder cancer if this radiation isn’t associated with bladder tumors? This makes the study absolutely stink of a conclusion looking for evidence, especially in combination with the failure to use the actual radiation data readily available from nuclear sites.

      • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        24 hours ago

        That’s what PubPeer is best for. :) Highly recommend grabbing the browser extensions, it helps contextualise a lot and authors do respond.

        • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Thanks for making me aware of it, I dunno how active the humanities side of it is but I’m definitely going to be checking my sources on it when I’m doing class work 👍

          • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            23 hours ago

            A little banner will pop up on wikipedia and journals if the article itself has comments or its’ cited ones do. It’s relatively unintrusive. It’s less active on humanities journals, but still around. :)