Who pays for bad science?

From The Independent...

A giant study, which surveyed more than 13,000 children, found that using the handsets just two or three times a day was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions and relationships by the time they reached school age. And it adds that the likelihood is even greater if the children themselves used the phones before the age of seven....

The scientists questioned the mothers of 13,159 children born in Denmark in the late 1990s about their use of the phones in pregnancy, and their children's use of them and behaviour up to the age of seven. As they gave birth before mobiles became universal, about half of the mothers had used them infrequently or not at all, enabling comparisons to be made.

They found that mothers who did use the handsets were 54 per cent more likely to have children with behavioural problems and that the likelihood increased with the amount of potential exposure to the radiation. And when the children also later used the phones they were, overall, 80 per cent more likely to suffer from difficulties with behaviour. They were 25 per cent more at risk from emotional problems, 34 per cent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers, 35 per cent more likely to be hyperactive, and 49 per cent more prone to problems with conduct.

Apparently none of these morons conducting this "scientific" study bothered to note that the type of person who used cell phones regularly in the late 90's would have been a much different type person that the population in general. We didn't get a cell phone until after 2000 and that was only because my wife's brother got a deal on a lot of them (ostensibly for his business) and handed them out to his relatives. We got used to having it so renewed it when his contract was up. But at the time we also had a land line and used the cell phone irregularly. The only reason we use it with any frequency now is because we dropped our land line to escape abusive telemarketers.

But there quite a few marked behavioral differences would also have distinguished regular cell phone users in the late 90's from the population as a whole, especially pregnant women who used a cell phone 3 to 4 times a day. That therefore could, and more than likely did lead to a much different parenting style, which would naturally result in a different attitude and behavior in their children. But when they get to the point of people who give cell phones to their kids under 7, puhleeze!

So a behavior that results in a behavior is determined to have an intermediary, physical cause, and no actual physical cause is cited? Could these be the same people that determined homosexuality is genetic based on a few, poorly done behavioral studies?

And most importantly, who paid for this boondoggle?

Posted by Danny Carlton at May 20, 2008 6:21 AM