Exposure to certain forms of air pollution is linked to an increased risk of developing dementia, according to the most comprehensive study of its kind.
Air pollution is the result of doing something. If we do something then we live longer. Long enough to get dementia rather than starving to death in our 30s.
QED.
“certain forms” … “linked to”
No wonder people capitalise Science.
Aha: “epidemiology unit”- say no more. Is all epidemiology bunk? Mere observational studies generalised without much in the way of critical thinking and perhaps designed – one must wonder – to cause hysteria and increased flow of funds to epidemiologists.
Should I read their study? Spare me, I’ve wasted enough time over the years.
“Linked to” in combination with Greentard Bugaboos….
Instill the Fear!!!
Gross exaggeration. Appeal to authority. Appeal to fear.
Bog standard journalist’ “science” article template.
>Air pollution is the result of doing something. If we do something then we live longer.
So The Lancet published a meta-analysis of dozens of studies that all got peer-reviewed and published, even though every one of them mistakenly compared “people of different ages”, instead of “people of the same age that were/weren’t exposed to air pollution over a long term”?
We’re all sick of experts, but an error in interpretation of this obviousness and magnitude going unnoticed by every form of review until it’s discovered by someone reading a summary in a popular science column?
>Gross exaggeration. Appeal to authority. Appeal to fear.
>Bog standard journalist’ “science” article template.
I would say The Guardian is way below “bog standard”, even considering the very low bar set by popular science reporting in the MSM.
I’m heartened to see that they gave appropriate prominence to the “self-flagellation for not being Diverse enough” statement that’s required to get published nowadays, presumably because it was the only part of the paper they actually understood.
BM, the template is ubiquitous.