Adam Mills

Comment [CC1]: Conors Comments Comment [CC2]: For the memo, it isnt your proposal. It sounds like you are confused in the memo, and you dont know which way youre going to go. You need to be clear and concise, and instead of say what you think of writing about, tell the reader what they need to know before reading your paper. Such as, maybe tell them your audience and purpose, and how they should read the paper, and even key things they should pay close attention to in the paper. Comment [CC3]: A? is there more than one sir Ritchie King? Comment [CC4]: Maybe you explain these in your paper, but what is a Kenneth foster and what is IEEE? Comment [CC5]: No is Comment [CC6]: You need to make up your mind, choose who you are responding to, or choose to respond to both Comment [CC7]: The form of a newspaper

Memo
For this next project I intend to respond to a sir Ritchie King who interviewed a Kenneth foster that works for IEEE. I also am a little confused about whom to respond to, is it the author of the article or is it is the person interviewed by the author of the article? I want this response to take the form a newspaper article or magazine article, but something that is definitely a paper source. As for which magazine I am not totally sure which would be better Prevention or health and wellness? I think both sources are equally as good of a host. The audience in this case will likely be women or the elderly since those are who read magazines mostly now. Although I guess it would be possible for a much larger audience if they put the article online as well. I want to respond to this article since this lead me to question about the legitimacy of some of this stuff they call science, better known as junk science. My purpose for writing this piece is to understand more about the research thats going into this issue and whether or not it is a flawed research program or not, also to spread my opinion in hopes to get others thinking and questioning about it as well.

How trust worthy is scientific research?

Ever wonder how legitimate some of the scientific research is that you hear about? What about if the research has biased opinions about their findings in order to keep their funders satisfied? Kenneth Foster at IEEE certainly thinks that the research on cell phone radiation has biases and flaws throughout the procedures. The main flaw in this research is that it is based off of epidemiology, the study of how chemicals, mainly drugs or viruses affect the human body. Therefore only a generalized statement could be made because every person will react differently to the same drug.
Comment [CC8]: Great use of questions to grab the readers attention.

Consequently accurate results can never be attained in this field of study because if one person reacted opposite to the others studied, than all the research data would become fabricated; but would it possible for the entire population to be studied for more accurate results rather than just a sample group? Obviously the answer would be that it is impossible, meaning that the results are more or less of recommendations rather than a fact about its affects. As well studies of this nature are not performed on human beings for to many dangers and it would be inhumane. Leaving the next logical test subject to be the lab rat, and even though we share over 90% of our DNA with rats, what are the chances that we will have the same reactions as rats do to these research tests? Now that the research practices are shown to be heavily flawed, what about their funding? Are they persuaded to tell the public only certain findings and not others? I think it would be very likely that there is some persuasion going on inside of these research companies; I am lead to believe this since companies like Verizon and Sprint support the research that goes into discrediting their products. So why would they spend money on research that has the potential to retard their sales? It is believed that they would do this to show

Comment [CC9]: Dont add a space between paragraphs.

Comment [CC10]: But would it be possible

Comment [CC11]: Add a comma after a transition. Instead of as well, you could say In addition, or Moreover,

Comment [CC12]: You can get rid of I think and start the paragraph iwht It or you could say The likeliness of is high. Comment [CC13]: Start a new sentence. You dont want a run on sentence. Comment [CC14]: *led

their concern for the topic, or to show the public that they are a part of the solution rather than the problem. For example the research company ICNIRP that works conjointly with the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) has achieved labeling electromagnetic fields as a class 2 carcinogen. A class 2 is extremely bad since they are almost a class 1 right? Wrong. Actually a class 2 is classified only to have a possibility of being carcinogenic with no direct links to being the root cause. A few other examples of a class 2 carcinogen is coffee, lead, and titanium among several others. So how likely is it that this research is trustworthy and should it be taken to heart for its suggestions? I would most certainly not rely on their statements to be the complete truth to what their research found, whether in a good way or a bad way. Instead I would view them more as advice to what might be a possibility and try to steer away from talking on the phone for prolonged amounts of time. As well as stay current on the research, and decide for myself whether or not the research was biased or flawed in any way. If the research is flawed then my next step would be to determine the magnitude of this flaw, from this I could then finally determine the reliability of the source and information.
Comment [CC16]: Good conclusion. Make sure no new information is being said in a concluding paragraph (not saying you did). Comment [CC15]: I know what a carcinogen is, but all people might not be as smart as you and me, so its up to you if you want to say what it is.