Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:16:57 -0700
Reply-To: Tom Slack <tom_sas@DUESOUTH.NET>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Tom Slack <tom_sas@DUESOUTH.NET>
Subject: Re: Convincing non-believers
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Didn't want to get into the "fine print" of sampling, and especially the
details of this project. Let's just say the heart randomizes blood and
forklifts randomizes barrels of depleted uranium oxide.
At 11:19 AM 6/12/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>Blood is relatively homogeneous; if you draw one sample you're going to
>get the same constituents as if you draw 60 samples.
>What reason was there to think that the uranium was also homogeneous?
>Were you melting it and mixing it all up together?
> >>> "Tom Slack" <tom_sas@DUESOUTH.NET> 06/12/2000 8:58 AM >>>
>I had a similar experience at a DOE facility in South Carolina. Everyone
>involved kept asking the same question: "What percent of the Lot do we
>test?" I kept saying that the number of samples does not depend on the
>We had a meeting where I was greatly out numbered by nonbelievers. One
>woman was going to have a baby soon and one man was tall and robust. I
>asked the mother to be if when she had her baby, was it likely the baby
>would need a blood test. She said yes. Then I asked the man if, for
>similar blood test, would he need to give about 60 times as much blood. He
>turned a little pale and said no. They approved my sampling plan and we
>were able to have drums of depleted Uranium declared as nonhazardous waste.
>In the short run, examples seem to work. In the long run, the American
>Society for Quality has a Power Point presentation called "Statistical
>Thinking" which treats Statistics as a philosophy and is well accepted by
>most people. Let me know if you would like the slides.
>At 08:19 PM 6/9/2000 +0000, you wrote:
> >I am involved in a study where members of the public that do not trust
> >the government agency responsible, The Deparment of Energy.
> >Once the study is complete there will be a need to convience the public of
> >the lack of or extent of hazard to human health.
> >How do you explain the results from sampling a large area that are
> >poisonous in extremely small quantities, long lived (10s of thousands of
> >years), and extremely difficult to detect (you can't smell it, see it, or
> >touch it and the chemistry is expensive)
> >How do you convince them without teaching a class in statistics?
> > William S. Kossack
> > Westminster, Colorado
> > firstname.lastname@example.org