Print

Print


I am not sure what this comment from Paddy is getting at. The news article
makes clear that this is a highly statistically significant finding albeit
in a small sample, but the reporter is certainly not dismissive of the
findings even if she quite rightly indicates that it is not a slam dunk. The
word "may" is entirely appropriate for this kind of preliminary study. Let's
save our fire where it is really needed, shall we?

MB

On 7/30/07, Paddy Apling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>  At 12:19 30/07/2007, you wrote:
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-autism30jul30,0,6609909.story?coll=la-tot-callocal&track=ntothtml
>
>
>
> *Pesticide link to autism suspected*
>
> A state study suggests two farm sprays may raise chances of having a child
> with the disorder.
> By Marla Cone
> Times Staff Writer
>
> July 30, 2007
>
> Women who live near California farm fields sprayed with organochlorine
> pesticides may be more likely to give birth to children with autism,
> according to a study by state health officials to be published today.
> *
> To which the best reponse is to say:
> *Any science news item having the wors MAY in its first sentence gives the
> game away - it really is as good as saying "Here follows a load of junk".
>
> Paddy
>  http://apling.freeservers.com
>
>


-- 
www.michaelbalter.com

******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
[log in to unmask]
******************************************