

"Facebook causes cancer" - baha_man
http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/

======
streety
Badscience is almost always worth the time to read. Although it can be a bit
depressing.

Taking a look at the article by Aric Sigman it does appear weak. Having said
that it's worth reading if only for the accompanying images.

------
petercooper
This study wouldn't have gotten any attention if it didn't have a bunch of
baity headlines attached to it, such as "How using Facebook could raise your
risk of cancer" or "Facebook causes cancer."

So prevalent is this in the media now that even scientists are getting in on
the action by making scandalous or outrageous claims that are weakly supported
by their results just in order to get some attention.

~~~
bdfh42
To be fair, The "Causes Cancer" rather than other alarmist results from using
Facebook et al came from a Daily Mail report - and the Daily Mail is a rag
that seems to add a gratuitous "Causes Cancer" or "Cures Cancer" tag to any
(even pseudo) scientific report.

~~~
m0nty
As Goldacre himself puts it:

"The Daily Mail, as you know, is engaged in a philosophical project of mythic
proportions: for many years now it has diligently been sifting through all the
inanimate objects in the world, soberly dividing them into the ones which
either cause - or cure - cancer."

[http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/a-rather-long-build-up-
to-...](http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/a-rather-long-build-up-to-one-
punchline/)

~~~
petercooper
And which are or aren't going to steal all of our jobs and escalate violence
in the UK :)

------
chiffonade
Sigh, the best way to deal with this sort of thing is to ignore it.

