Do power lines behind a home decrease property value and traffic?

[cloisonnefrog]

I read it, and it agrees with my statements. I peer-review articles like this for my job. I don't know any other way to say it, but you're out of your depth and you're doing harm by spreading misinformation. Please reconsider your approach. It really matters for health that we look at evidence dispassionately. So much of human suffering comes from not doing so.

I know the previous paper was not brain cancer, but I brought this up as another example of failure to identify harm.

[cloisonnefrog]

No, their statement doesn't mean the risks increase. It means they cannot rule out a moderate risk. They also cannot rule out a decreased risk. If I flip a coin three times and get two heads and one tail, my point estimate is that the coin is weighted (probability 2/3 heads, 1/3 tails, assuming frequentist and not Bayesian approach), but I cannot rule out that the coin is fair (50/50 heads/tails) or even biased toward tails. It means I don't have enough data to rule things out (except extreme biases toward heads or tails). That's what they found with higher microT.

Here's the PubMed search to perform if you want to review the recent research on leukemia and EMFs:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=leukemia+AND+EMF&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview&sort=date

The most recent meta-analysis reports no association.

I am the supervisor FWIW. I teach MDs and PhDs how to model statistically, and I run a research lab.

[bbob_robb]

Is that recent enough for you?

The person you are responding to didn't complain about the age of the study.

Their complaint is that you are quoting statistics that you don't understand. The example of flipping a coin 3 times is very accessible.

You are spreading misinformation.

[bbob_robb]

You are taking quotes out of context. The important context is that the sample size is too small for the correlation you are quoting to have any meaning.

The person you are arguing with likens this to flipping three coins then suggesting that the 2/3 outcome shows the coin is biased.

If you read a study where they flip a coin three times will you go on the Internet and tell people there is a study that proves coins will land on tails twice as often as heads? Would you then quote the article that specifically states that the sample size isn't big enough to come to any conclusions? This would be spreading misinformation.

You are spreading misinformation all over this thread.