Bill Jefferys points to this news article by Denise Grady. Bill noticed the following bit, “In male rats, the studies linked tumors in the heart to high exposure to radiation from the phones. But that problem did not occur in female rats, or any mice,” and asked:
Forking paths, much?
My reply: The summary of the news article seems reasonable: “But two government studies released on Friday, one in rats and one in mice, suggest that if there is any risk, it is small, health officials said.”
But, yes, later on they get into the weeds: “Scientists do not know why only male rats develop the heart tumors, but Dr. Bucher said one possibility is simply that the males are bigger and absorb more of the radiation.” They didn’t mention the possibility that variations just happen at random, and the fact that a comparison happened to be statistically significant in the data is not necessarily strong evidence that it represents a corresponding pattern in the population.
Yes, it was the weeds that bothered me.
Overall, then, yes, a good news article.
The post It was the weeds that bothered him. appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.