Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Health
See other Health Articles

Title: Depleted U - An impromptu interview w/ a Career Tank Specialist
Source: me
URL Source: http://none.com
Published: Apr 27, 2005
Author: Tom007
Post Date: 2005-04-27 22:07:28 by tom007
Keywords: Specialist, impromptu, interview
Views: 2618
Comments: 488

Had an intesting conversation with a man I have known for about 5 months. He delivers to my store, handles alot of cash and is a "straight up" kind of guy. I like him, and I am sure his employer does as well. A steady Eddie man, the kind that makes the country run.

We somehow got talking about the ME, and he mentioned he had been to Egypt, and really did not care for any of it. I asked him how it was that he found himself in the ME and he said he was in the service of the military.

Naturally I wanted to know in what type of service he was in. Well, he was drafted into 'Nam, and did twentyfour years, and tanks were his thing. He started out in a tank designation I did not know of. I know a little about M1A1' and wanted to know some things about them, and the man was very evidently the real deal, no swagger, no he man stories etc. He is who he claims.

After some talk of tactics, guns, how to disable an M1A1, exploding armor, all of which he had the knolwedge of a solider who had spent many years with this type of equipment. He was pretty high up in the system.

Then I asked him about DU. Well turns out he was one of the men on the ground testing it at Aburdeen Proving grounds, shooting various things, like mounds of earth, then digging into it to estimate the ballistics, etc.

Did this many time, and my friend related that one time a DU projectile fragmented into the mound of earth. They were to go dig all the pieces of the remenents out. As he tells me, there was a hole that one of the fragments had made, and as they were poking around, a field mouse was scared up and scampered into that hole made by a fragment.

He just sat back and waited for it to come out-; it didn't. After a few minutes, he saw that it was dead.

He went and got the General of the testing operation, and showed him what he had discovered. The General and his men looked at the situation and told all the testers to go away. For three weeks the site was closed, except to the investigators.

Three weeks later, the investigation was complete. The report said the mouse died of "starvation". My friend looked at me, eye to eye, and laughed. "That mouse damn sure didn't die of starvation", he said emphatically.

He said when the DU rounds hit a tank, he could "see a mushroom cloud", formed (Note, alot of high intensity heat will form a mushroom cloud event).

He said "if you take a giger counter into one of the tanks with DU munitions it will beep like crazy". He said that the explosiom of a DU round into steel was" basically a miniature explosion of a nuclear bomb".

He said they would put goats in the test tanks, and around them. He stated that " for twentyfive meters around the tank, hit by a DU round, all the goats would be dead, ten meters, mangled, turned inside out".

He believed DU dust to be alot more dangerous than the military was allowing.

This man is much more creadible, to me, much more, than the talking hairdoo's reading spin points from the Pentagon.

Draw your own conclusions, this is what I heard today, from a man with incontrovertable creadibility with me. He was there.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-317) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#318. To: Kyle, BTP Holdings, Jhoffa_, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Aric2000, robin, crack monkey, Axenolith, christine, tom007, Dude Lebowski, h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Zipporah (#314)


Fuck you and your disinformation atempts, Kyle! The military specs are clear, as to the hazards.

Ask the Gulf War vets. Even the Brits have the DU problem.

You're a piece of shit, Kyle!


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-29   15:12:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#319. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, BTP Holdings, Jhoffa_, Aric2000, robin, crack monkey, Axenolith, christine, tom007, SKYDRIFTER, Dude Lebowski, h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Zipporah (#316)

It is you and your sources that are severely biased on this issue. Biased in the extreme!

It is duly noted that you made no attempt to defend the claims that I skewered. I sense that you know that the 500,000 disabled GWI vets is BS and absurd on its face, and that the NEJM findings are dead accurate. But to admit that would be to admit that the 'experts' that you are relying on have no credibilty, so you won't. No one is so blind as he who will not see.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   15:14:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#320. To: Kyle (#319)

Putz. Your study is dated June, 1997

FLASH! BABE RUTH TRADED TO THE YANKEES!

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   15:18:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#321. To: Jethro Tull (#317)

Putz. Your study is dated June, 1997. It's coming on 8 years old. The material you've chosen to ignore is current. Here's a dollar. Buy a clue.

So what are you saying, Jethro? Do you mean to imply that large numbers of children had RETROACTIVE birth defects in the last few years? Idiot.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   15:19:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#322. To: Starwind (#45)

The explosion described in the article is most likely a pyrophoric effect and certainly not atomic.

I believe the primary risk of DU is heavy metal poisioning. I certainly wouldn't want to inhale DU dust.

Radioactivity risk is nil. I keep some hot uranium rocks under my bed for the healthful hormetic effects of elevated exposure.

AdamSelene  posted on  2005-04-29   15:47:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#323. To: Kyle (#321)

So what are you saying, Jethro?

I'm saying that your 8 year old material is refuted by current data. Take the time to read what folks posted to you.

BTW, can you say Bahhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   15:49:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#324. To: Kyle (#319)

It looks like the numbers change a bit when we aren't depending upon the Veterans Administration to provide the data. Source

Prevalence of birth defects among infants of Gulf War veterans in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, and Iowa, 1989-1993.

Araneta MR, Schlangen KM, Edmonds LD, Destiche DA, Merz RD, Hobbs CA, Flood TJ, Harris JA, Krishnamurti D, Gray GC.

Department of Defense Center for Deployment Health Research, Naval Health Research, Center, San Diego, California, USA. haraneta@ucsd.edu

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies of birth defects among infants of Gulf War veterans (GWV) have been limited to military hospitals, anomalies diagnosed among newborns, or self-reported data. This study was conducted to measure the prevalence of birth defects among infants of GWVs and nondeployed veterans (NDV) in states that conducted active case ascertainment of birth defects between 1989-93. METHODS: Military records of 684,645 GWVs and 1,587,102 NDVs were electronically linked with 2,314,908 birth certficates from Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, and selected counties of Arkansas, California, and Georgia; 11,961 GWV infants and 33,052 NDV infants were identified. Of these, 450 infants had mothers who served in the Gulf War, and 3966 had NDV mothers.

RESULTS: Infants conceived postwar to male GWVs had significantly higher prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficicieny (relative risk [RR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.6; p = 0.039) and aortic valve stenosis (RR, 6. 0; 95% CI, 1.2-31.0; p = 0.026) compared to infants conceived postwar to NDV males. Among infants of male GWVs, aortic valve stenosis (RR, 163; 95% CI, 0. 09-294; p = 0.011) and renal agenesis or hypoplasia (RR, 16.3; 95% CI, 0.09-294; p = 0.011) were significantly higher among infants conceived postwar than prewar. Hypospadias was significantly higher among infant sons conceived postwar to GWV women compared to NDV women (RR, 6.3; 95% CI, 1.5-26.3; p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION: We observed a higher prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficiency, aortic valve stenosis, and renal agenesis or hypoplasia among infants conceived postwar to GWV men, and a higher prevalence of hypospadias among infants conceived postwar to female GWVs. We did not have the ability to determine if the excess was caused by inherited or environmental factors, or was due to chance because of myriad reasons, including multiple comparisons. Although the statistical power was sufficient to compare the combined birth defects prevalence, larger sample sizes were needed for less frequent individual component defects.

PMID: 12854660 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   15:58:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#325. To: Jethro Tull (#323)

I'm saying that your 8 year old material is refuted by current data. Take the time to read what folks posted to you.

Children can't retroactively have birth defects. What are you saying? Is the NEJM lying? Is whatever looney you're refering to more credible than the NEJM?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   15:59:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#326. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#324)

CONCLUSION: We observed a higher prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficiency, aortic valve stenosis, and renal agenesis or hypoplasia among infants conceived postwar to GWV men, and a higher prevalence of hypospadias among infants conceived postwar to female GWVs. We did not have the ability to determine if the excess was caused by inherited or environmental factors, or was due to chance because of myriad reasons, including multiple comparisons. Although the statistical power was sufficient to compare the combined birth defects prevalence, larger sample sizes were needed for less frequent individual component defects.

Not exactly earth shattering. The sample size was too small to compare most individual defects and the increase in overall defects was barely statistically significant. They can't conclude that it wasn't other factors or chance. That's a long way from 2/3 having gross defects.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   16:04:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#327. To: Kyle (#326)

I figured you would jump on that sentence and misunderstand what it was saying. That's not uncommon for an uneducated immature kid like yourself. Try reading it again to see if you can sleuth out what it really means. If you get stuck and give up, I might even help you with the big words.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   16:05:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#328. To: Kyle (#319)

Correction: " It is duly noted that you made no attempt to defend the claims that I skewered skewed.'

AND also I referenced Dr. Rokke several times and you attempted to demonize him and then totally ignored my references to him and what he has said on DU.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-29   16:06:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#329. To: Kyle (#326)

Infertility among male UK veterans of the 1990-1 Gulf war: reproductive cohort study

Noreen Maconochie, senior lecturer in epidemiology and medical statistics1, Pat Doyle, reader in epidemiology1, Claire Carson, research assistant1

1 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, London WC1E 7HT

Correspondence to: N Maconochie noreen.maconochie@lshtm.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To examine the hypothesis that, theoretically at least, exposure to toxicants of the type present in the Gulf war could affect spermatogenesis, which might be observed as increased levels of infertility.

Design Retrospective reproductive cohort analysis.

Setting Male UK Gulf war veterans and matched comparison group of non-deployed servicemen, surveyed by postal questionnaire.

Participants 42 818 completed questionnaires were returned, representing response rates of 53% for Gulf veterans and 42% for non-Gulf veterans; 10 465 Gulf veterans and 7376 non-Gulf veterans reported fathering or trying to father pregnancies after the Gulf war.

Main outcome measures Failure to achieve conceptions (type I infertility) or live births (type II infertility) after the Gulf war, having tried for at least a year and consulted a doctor; time to conception among pregnancies fathered by men not reporting fertility problems.

Results Risk of reported infertility was higher among Gulf war veterans than among non-Gulf veterans (odds ratio for type I infertility 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.89; type II 1.50, 1.18 to 1.89). This small effect was constant over time since the war and was observed whether or not the men had fathered pregnancies before the war. Results were similar when analyses were restricted to clinically confirmed diagnoses. Pregnancies fathered by Gulf veterans not reporting fertility problems also took longer to conceive (odds ratio for > 1 year 1.18, 1.04 to 1.34).

Conclusions We found some evidence of an association between Gulf war service and reported infertility. Pregnancies fathered by Gulf veterans with no fertility problems also reportedly took longer to conceive.

full text

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   16:07:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#330. To: Kyle (#325)

Children can't retroactively have birth defects

Duh...

Current material on this thread connects DU and birth defects.

Spin dreidel spin.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   16:09:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#331. To: Jethro Tull (#330)

Nearly every study I've read that evaluates the health of babies born to Gulf War Vets versus Non Gulf War Vets shows a significantly high rate of renal abnormalities. Hmmmm... I wonder why that might be?

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   16:17:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#332. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#329)

Results Risk of reported infertility was higher among Gulf war veterans than among non-Gulf veterans (odds ratio for type I infertility 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.89; type II 1.50, 1.18 to 1.89). This small effect was constant over time since the war and was observed whether or not the men had fathered pregnancies before the war. Results were similar when analyses were restricted to clinically confirmed diagnoses. Pregnancies fathered by Gulf veterans not reporting fertility problems also took longer to conceive (odds ratio for > 1 year 1.18, 1.04 to 1.34).

Conclusions We found some evidence of an association between Gulf war service and reported infertility. Pregnancies fathered by Gulf veterans with no fertility problems also reportedly took longer to conceive.

Slight. Minimal. No causation.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   16:45:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#333. To: Jethro Tull (#330)

Current material on this thread connects DU and birth defects.

Give me a link to something verifable. Anything referencing back to Moret, Busby, etc. does not qualify. Peer reviewed scientific or medical journals prefered.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   16:46:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#334. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#331)

Nearly every study I've read that evaluates the health of babies born to Gulf War Vets versus Non Gulf War Vets shows a significantly high rate of renal abnormalities. Hmmmm... I wonder why that might be?

You haven't posted a source. Hmmmm... I wonder why that might be? Anything referencing back to Moret, Busby, et al, is unnacceptable.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   16:48:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#335. To: Kyle (#332)

Slight. Minimal. No causation.

Yeah. Fuck'em. Right, Kyle? That IS your attitude. They're just scum sucking military anyway, so who cares if they have medical problems. It sure doesn't bother Kyle. No way, man. He's too educated to care about the military or the civilians in those other countries where the sub-humans live. Yeah, Kyle, you're a real man's man. A macho piece of fecal matter.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   16:50:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#336. To: Kyle (#333)

Give me a link to something verifable. Anything referencing back to Moret, Busby, etc. does not qualify. Peer reviewed scientific or medical journals prefered.

I see you're still here denying ..spinning..like a whirling dervish.. My question .. how do YOU benefit from playing the role of a disinformationalist? Hmm you mentioned grandchildren.. are they serving in Iraq.. ?

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-29   16:53:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#337. To: Kyle (#334)

You haven't posted a source.

You don't read them anyway. You just pick through until you run across a word that you think might discredit it and then you post it like some kind of trump card, not even realizing that you're making a fool of yourself.

If you care even one little tiny bit about the lives of vets or their children, then how about you look up the studies and find the level of renal abnormalities in GWV offspring. No, you won't, because you don't give a shit. They're just meat machines to your kind of punk.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   16:53:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#338. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#335)

Slight. Minimal. No causation.

Yeah. Fuck'em. Right, Kyle? That IS your attitude.

I don't know if your response is out of ignorance or if you are being intentionally obtuse. 'Slight' and 'minimal' mean that they are of limited statistical significance and/or may be caused by other factors not accounted for in the study. 'No causation' states the obvious - The effect, if real, could be caused by something else entirely, since they made no conclusions.

I'm not heartless. If the proof were there, I'd be all over it, but it's not. I know - You're probably a braindead Lefty that thinks the seriousness of the charge takes precedence over whether there is any evidence or not.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   17:00:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#339. To: Kyle (#338)

You're probably a braindead Lefty

Now.. arent these choice of words interesting..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-29   17:02:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#340. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#337)

You haven't posted a source.

You don't read them anyway.

I not only read them, but I follow links and do extensive web searches. That's how I find out that these 'experts' are tight little circles of self- referencing charlatans.

You just pick through until you run across a word that you think might discredit it and then you post it like some kind of trump card, not even realizing that you're making a fool of yourself.

As I explained above, I do a lot more than you. You're the fool for being suckered by these charlatans.

If you care even one little tiny bit about the lives of vets or their children, then how about you look up the studies and find the level of renal abnormalities in GWV offspring. No, you won't, because you don't give a shit. They're just meat machines to your kind of punk.

Why should I look up your claims? If you've got something, give me a lead. If you don't, or you know that it's BS, then admit it, and STOP CLAIMING I DON'T CARE BECAUSE I'M RATIONAL ABOUT IT.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   17:04:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#341. To: Zipporah (#339)

You're probably a braindead Lefty

Now.. arent these choice of words interesting..

Not really. They go together so often as to be mundane.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   17:05:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#342. To: Kyle (#340)

I not only read them, but I follow links and do extensive web searches.

Uh-huh. That's how you got caught presuming to post a research conclusion that in fact was not even from the study the posted abstract referenced. That's also why you got caught failing to even read anything but the teaser on an article that you posted from and didn't realize the article contradicted what you were claiming. Face it Kyle. Everybody here sees right through your little charade.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   17:08:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#343. To: Kyle (#341)

yes they are mundane.. same old same old same propaganda technique.. If someone doesnt buy into the official BS .. they are either an evil leftist or a kook.. according to the propagandists.. so it was expected.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-29   17:08:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#344. To: Kyle (#340)

You're the fool for being suckered by these charlatans.

Charlatans? What charlatans, Kyle? You don't even have the slightest clue who you are calling a charlatan because you haven't looked up the research on renal abnormalities in the offspring of Gulf War Vets. If you did, you might be embarrassed, but that's why you won't. You're too much of a lying coward.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   17:09:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#345. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#342)

That's also why you got caught failing to even read anything but the teaser on an article that you posted from and didn't realize the article contradicted what you were claiming.

Kyle didn't even read the teaser. The first sentence of the Teaser blew him out of the water. If he had read that, he never would have referenced the article. Kyle simply told a bald faced lie about having sources to back him up.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-29   17:12:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#346. To: crack monkey (#345)

Kyle simply told a bald faced lie about having sources to back him up.

Go figure. He's in the rarified air of the neo-con empire and we're stuck here in the reality based community.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   17:17:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#347. To: crack monkey (#345)

That's also why you got caught failing to even read anything but the teaser on an article that you posted from and didn't realize the article contradicted what you were claiming.

Kyle didn't even read the teaser. The first sentence of the Teaser blew him out of the water. If he had read that, he never would have referenced the article. Kyle simply told a bald faced lie about having sources to back him up.

Just keep saying it; but it won't change the facts. The article quoted Pollack saying precisely what I said he said. The 'teaser' was the opinion of the unnamed person who posted the article. Really lame guys. Your reaching back for it yet again smells of flop sweat ;o)

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   17:33:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#348. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#344)

because you haven't looked up the research on renal abnormalities in the offspring of Gulf War Vets.

Post a link or shut up about it.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   17:34:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#349. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, crack monkey (#346)

we're stuck here in the reality based community.

Antiwar.com? Reality based? ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   17:39:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#350. To: Kyle (#348)

Post a link or shut up about it.

No, Kyle. I don't think you are in any position to make me shut up about it. You can't make the medical researchers shut up about it either. The best you can do is ignore it or plug your ears and chant while hoping it goes away.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   17:41:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#351. To: Kyle (#349)

Antiwar.com? Reality based? ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!

See, here's another example of Kyle making a fool of himself by ignoring information because it came from a source he's scared of. You do realize that in actual fact you are making fun of a senior Bush Administration official, don't you? No, you don't realize it. You're too willfully ignorant to understand the context of what I referred to.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   17:43:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#352. To: Kyle (#333)

Give me a link to something .

Here's something verifiable. We're getting our asses kicked and it's well deserved. There was a time I actually wanted these guys home, but now I say to those who continue to fight for Bush, stay where you are, your day is coming. The Iraqis have us tied down and the all volunteer military is showing signs of severe strain. I recently read where a 55 year old grandmother is being returned to active duty. This is good. I pray we continue to lose these young and old warmongers. If they want to be in Iraq, they’re brain dead anyway. Good riddance.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   17:58:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#353. To: Kyle (#348)

Kyle, welcome to the past, and our future.

An audio and pictorial display for your delight.

Peace.

The Doors - The End

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   19:04:40 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#354. To: Kyle (#347)

The article quoted Pollack saying precisely what I said he said. The 'teaser' was the opinion of the unnamed person who posted the article.

The Atlantic article you quoted refutes your position. The link is up and everyone can read it and decide for themselves. / chuckle!

I don't blame you for trying to spin it however. What else can a person do when they get caught out as a bald faced liar and bullshitter -- like you did. /grin.

There is no changing the fact that you are a moron who referenced an article you hadn't read and which blew your position out of the water.

Here is the link in case anyone missed the show:

Kyle Lies Like a Rug and Gets Busted For It.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-29   19:12:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#355. To: Kyle (#348)

Kyle, Kyle....more linkies....

Stop, children, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   19:23:53 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#356. To: Jethro Tull (#330)

Current material on this thread connects DU and birth defects.

Actually, current material on this thread notes the existence of a statistically detectable elevation in numbers of certain defects among a cohort composed of Gulf War veterans without positing a cause.

Personally, I think they're on the rats ass edge of variance and relative risk versus their 95% UCL too, based on having a lot of experience having to derive 90% and 95% UCL values for lead in soil (of which, the fact that it is soil or people is irrelevant since the whole shebang is being broken down into numbers). I'll try to remember to run those figures by someone else here next week who specialized in it...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   21:41:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#357. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#331)

significantly high rate

The relative risk number is probably based on a per million CFR or EPA type threshold. If this is true, the relative risk numbers derived would infer the nuber of cases versus 1 per million, i.e. if the factor is 6 there would be 6 per million as opposed to the normal background of 1.

"Significantly high rate" as a term, is not something statisticians should be throwing around in "for public consumption" stuff without a bit of clarification. Many times a "significantly high rate" to the statistician is a rate that determines that a particular effect, defect, illness etc... may be connected to an identifiable cause and thus warrants further study (and grant money, for the cynical).

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   21:48:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#358. To: Kyle, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, All (#338)

I'll grant that the numbers in and of themselves probably warrant a lot further close study to see if there is a linkable effect. That's basically the level of conclusion that those numbers draw.

The BIG thing here though that some folks might want to think about is that, if you take these statistical derivations on their face as a conclusion that fits either side of the issues conception of it, you are opening yourselves to accepting these very same methods and levels of statistical certainty for other issues that you may be 180 degrees from the conclusion of.

Think about that, the same method may eshew further studies, because most of the people the "conclusion" is aimed at swaying accept it on its face. That could get ugly when you're fighting gun control, welfare, crime, drug use and other "statistics".

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   21:58:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (359 - 488) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest