Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rande Is who wrote (13064)	10/1/1999 9:16:00 PM
From: OpusX	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Rande, What specifics do you need on prednisone metabolism? it is along with cholesterol and the other active steroids predominantly metabolized in the liver. I have a million books here if I can help, let me know. Robert

To: Rande Is who wrote (13064)	10/2/1999 2:16:00 AM
From: Tummus1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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

To: Rande Is who wrote (13064)	10/2/1999 2:59:00 AM
From: Tummus1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Rande I also would add that BECAUSE you are such a skeptic of authoratative sources is precisely why I tune into this thread so often ;) TW

To: Rande Is who wrote (13064)	10/2/1999 11:16:00 AM
From: Bucky Katt	Respond to of 57584

Rande, you stated this> ""I am merely looking at things with a slant that is often ignored. . .and rarely welcomed."" You are 100% correct. The entrenched power will always fight to keep their opinions, their justification for being, no matter if they are 100% wrong, and know it. I always ask myself this, who gets happy, and from what outcome? The ancients had this figured out thousands of years ago, they asked "QUI BONO" <whom does it benefit?> Oh, manmade airborne radioactive dust is a whole lot different than simple, naturally occuring everyday backround radiation. Rad load is apples and oranges. Type is the important aspect, that most ignore.