You are currently browsing the archives for the bad science category.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
3. May 2008 by emeris.
It makes me sad when people abuse science in the name of ripping people off. It makes me sadder when people claim to explain the science being used and muddle it even more.
For example: http://bellasugar.com/1073289 (which I am not linking to because I don’t want to help their google ranking at all (I know google regularly crawls this page)). First they define an ion, while linking to wikipedia, and still get it wrong. Typically “atomic particles” is referring to the constituents of atoms. Second they claim that ionic hair driers are faster by “…breaking down water molecules into smaller bits…” which strikes me as nonsense. If this were a major factor in drying the hair, it should also cause a fair amount of damage to your skin as well.
I briefly contemplated signing up for the site to make these comments, but then I thought of this xkcd and decided to write a blog post instead.
To see other people pointing out people who are wrong on the internet see here. Teh stoopid, it burns!
Posted in bad science, bug, physics | 1 Comment »