[ RadSafe ] ethics in research question

[Steven Dapra]

March 2

         The bovik/basra link below is to another of bovik/Salsman's 
worthless graphs.  This one has its "y' axis labeled with increments, 
however there is no explanation of what the increments are.  To reiterate, 
the graph is worthless.

         My "scholarship" tells me the 95% confidence interval is 
irrelevant and immaterial.  The point under consideration is whether or not 
Kang's claim of a 2.2 greater risk of birth defects has any merit.  Has 
that claim passed peer review, and has it been published?  If it has, let's 
have a citation to the journal wherein it was published.

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com



At 05:30 AM 3/2/07 -0800, James Salsman wrote:
>Steve,
>
>Thank you for your comments.
>
>What does your scholarship tell you the 95% confidence interval is?
>
>If you look at the way the Araneta and earlier papers developed over
>time, it closely follows the data being reported out of Basra:
>  http://www.bovik.org/du/basrah.gif
>
>-- earlier message --
>From: Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
>
>         This graph proves nothing.  It's so silly and so ill-supported it
>should be an embarrassment..

[edit]