I wouldn’t normally bother with this as it’s just too easy but it’s not the first time I’ve seen the BBC misunderstand the technology of processors.
…Intel has replaced the gate dielectrics, previously made from silicon dioxide, with a material based on the metal hafnium.
Hafnium is a so-called high-K material, which refers to its dielectric constant, and has a greater ability to store electrical charge than silicon dioxide.
Between these two lines they seem to change their mind what they are taking about. Intel has replaced the gate dielectrics with a hafnium based material, hafnium dioxide. If, as they claim in the second line, they had used hafnium they would have made a useless processor. They tell us themselves that hafnium is a metal – it therefore cannot be a dielectric.
Sadly even Intel seem to make this mistake on their own site.
Intel has made a significant breakthrough in solving the chip power problem, identifying a new “high-k” (Hi-k) material called hafnium to replace the transistor’s silicon dioxide gate dielectric
But at least they get it right later on
“High-k” materials, such as hafnium dioxide (HfO2), zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) inherently have a dielectric constant or “k” above 3.9, the “k” of silicon dioxide.
I know this is pedantry to the extreme but it really isn’t that hard to grasp, is it?
Filed under: Badscience, Media, Science Communication, Tech by badchemist
No Comments »
In the media today there have been several reports of the increased risk of cervical cancer for women taking the contraceptive pill. All these reports relate to a Lancet article that has been published this week – unfortunately I won’t get access until next week when it hits “Pill cancer risk soars”. This seems a little strong for a headline considering the story continues thus:
The rate of cervical cancer for women up to 50 who have not used the Pill is 3.8 per thousand.
This increases to 4.0 per thousand in women on the Pill for five years and to 4.5 per thousand on the popular combined contraceptive pills for 10 years.
So, even if you want to reduce to simple percentages, women who have been on the pill for 5 years they have increased their risk from 0.38 % to 0.4 %. That’s just over a 5 % increase if you want to use the typical tabloid method of mishandling such figures. For 10 year users the increase is ~18% using the same rather dubious methodology.
What really matters is that the actual change in risk is actually rather small, 0.38 % to 0.45 % is probably not much to worry about considering the huge number of other factors that influence a persons well-being.
The other thing I want to comment about on this is an avenue that may or may not have been raised in the Lancet article – I’ll update when I know. One of the known causes of cervical cancer are certain forms of Human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. Is it not possible that, due to the use of the contraceptive pill, some women may be less meticulous with the use of barrier contraceptives thus leaving themselves open (that wasn’t supposed to be an innuendo) to infection with HPV and therefore an increased chance of cervical cancer?
Obviously this is all speculation so if anyone out there has more information on the subject please comment below or email me (address on the about page).
Filed under: Good Science, Media, Medicine and Health, Science Communication, Statistics by badchemist
1 Comment »
