SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Rande Is who wrote (13064)10/2/1999 2:16:00 AM
From: Tummus1  Read Replies (1) of 57584
 
Rande
Sorry but this analogy makes little sense to me. The coin toss experiment that I mentioned was to simply illustrate a basic statistical concept to illustrate the effect of sample size that you originally addressed. To introduce some magnets and then conjure up hypothetical results in such a complicated system is pointless. The fact is that if the coins were tossed in the same fashion then the roughly the same percentages of coins should stick with the results becoming more accurate the greater the number of times thrown and the greater the number of coins used. As with the original coin toss experiment the smaller sample size gives poorer results.

As for the alleged ineptitude of the researchers while they make mistakes please remember that his was published in a peer reviewed journal meaning it was subjected to extensive examination by other scientist int he same field. Maybe they screwed up but it is data and there exists nothing to conttradict it. Any way you look at it the effects can hardly be that significant if after extensive study no one can really tell if the cancer rates have appreciably gone up.

Besides the amount of radioactivity released was barely above background so as I said the issue is moot.
TW
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext