Basic Science Errors in the Mainstream Media...

It surprises me how commonly I find basic science errors in publications from mainstream media.  Here's an article in The Economist that provides a great example.  The offending paragraph:

It is true, and was the basis of Edison's showmanship, that low-frequency alternating current can be more hazardous than an equivalent direct current. By oscillating at a similar frequency (50-60 hertz) to the human heart, a sufficiently strong alternating current can cause that organ to beat arhythmically and thereby induce ventricular fibrillation—a potentially deadly condition that needs to be corrected immediately.

Most of the rest of the article is at least close to accurate, but this paragraph is laughably inaccurate.  For starters, the statement that alternating current oscillates at a similar frequency is off, by a factor of 60.  The author appears to have confused oscillations per second (in alternating current) with beats per minute (of our hearts).  He then goes on to develop a theory, unknown to science, that this similarity of frequency is the reason why alternating current induces arhythmia.  It's just wrong; completely made up so far as I can tell.

The mainstream media is full of this sort of thing.  It's a rare day that goes by without me spotting at least one of them.  Most of them never get corrected, or even noted by any commenters.  This can only mean one of two things, I think: either people who are reasonably science-literate have just given up, or there aren't very many science-literate people.  Come to think of it, it could be both at the same time.

Doom...