this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025
128 points (99.2% liked)

Not The Onion

19180 readers
1520 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The nation’s largest organization for medical examiners has issued a warning about a controversial, centuries-old forensic test that has contributed to cases in which pregnant women have been charged with murder.

The premise behind the lung float test is simple: If a baby was born alive and then died, air from its first breaths would cause its lungs to float in a jar with water. If the baby was stillborn, the lack of air in the lungs would cause them to sink.

But the many critics of the test have long labeled it junk science and drawn parallels between the test and witch trials, where women were deemed witches based on whether they floated or sank.

all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So if she weighs more than a duck... She's a witch!

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Definitely sounds like something out of the early stages of modern medicine; not something still used today.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Sounds a bit like bite mark analysis - make up the result you want, then make the data (or test) fit.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And hair analysis. And fibers. All popularized in US to get more convictions but rejected in Europe as junk science.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't see how those are junk science, but I also don't know how they are being used. Many things can be used in improper ways.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They were looking at a hair and saying that they are sure it belongs to the suspect. It was before DNA. It was later discovered that the FBI lab that did this "analysis" would simply say that "yes, it's a match". No science behind it. Many people ended in jail because of it, some were executed and later exonerated by DNA tests. There was a big scandal about it couple of years ago.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Well, that's just bad science regardless of what was actually being tested.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Even DNA tests can be junk if used incorrectly.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

That's what bad science does, regardless of what's being done.

[–] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Medical examiners are not coroners. Depending on the State, any schmuck can be an examiner.

[–] Doubleohdonut@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago

Heh iirc this approach can also apply to coroners, in areas where that's an elected position.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You have it backwards. Coroners are an elected position whereas ME's are typically trained doctors. Any schmuck can get elected coroner. One of many sources. Jon Oliver even did an episode on the subject.

[–] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

I stand corrected. I'm Canadian and it's all done by government here so no problem or distinction