What's important here, as explained in my previous post, is the relative level of radiation produced by the burial slab, compared to other rocks in the immediate vicinity. They act as controls and enable the scientists to set the baseline level of radiation being emitted from other areas of the site. This baseline data can then be compared to the data acquired from the burial slab. When this analysis is repeated multiple times, a calculation of the statistical significance of any differences between burial slab and adjacent areas can be obtained. I assume this has been done, since the article refers those involved as "scientists". Until we see the exact figures on the levels and wavelengths of the EM radiation allegedly being emitted from the rock slab, it is pointless to discuss this - we are, in essence, arguing in a (near) vacuum of real information.
"...can be obtained." Call me when it is obtained.
"...I assume... that this has been done... refers [to] those involved as "scientists." That's hardly better than publishing a rumor and referring to "inside sources" or reporting on a new "cure for cancer" based on the testimony / speculation of so-called "experts."
Read my tagline.
Regards,
Until we see the exact figures on the levels and wavelengths of the EM radiation allegedly being emitted from the rock slab, it is pointless to discuss this - we are, in essence, arguing in a (near) vacuum of real information. Which means that we should hold off in giving it either full credence, or outright rejection, right?
The correct term for this type of report is "anecdotal" evidence.