I can not recall the last time, if ever, I found that a newspaper story accurately represented the science of any study in any field. Without methodology there is no science. There are simply no facts in the NYT story that would justify not dismissing it totally and completely out of hand.
Absent facts, I strongly share Dr. Farsalinos' suspicions that the study's findings may be in the context of unvapable dry hits. A dry coil can reach higher temperatures than a fully saturated coil can. I await the facts of the study as published in a peer reviewed journal before drawing conclusions. However, I'm not terribly optimistic that the study will have used methodology that has produced anything but theoretical data that will be close to useless on a practical level.
I agree somewhat. Conclusions of newspaper stories on scientific studies could be inaccurate for many different reasons ( lack of understanding, having a specific agenda, emphasizing or reporting on selected parts of the study etc... ). But it's a starting point.
It's good to be skeptical, but there is a line we should be careful not to cross. Assuming every study with an undesired result is complete nonsense, and assuming the worst intentions, when you don't have all the facts, is dangerous. By all means, we should approach with a skeptical attitude, but not with a pre-set determination to debunk and disprove. And it isn't easy, i know, based on the track record of media in this regard.
I am not accusing you or anyone else here commenting on the studies, of having crossed that line, mind you. We should just be vigilant in not doing so, is all.