Date:         Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:52:48 -0500
Reply-To:     "Lambert, Bob" <Bob_Lambert@AFCC.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         "Lambert, Bob" <Bob_Lambert@AFCC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Convincing non-believers
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Is not the variation within the lot the driving force?  So a larger
variation will demand more samples than a smaller variation.  Thus, back to
the question of homogeneity.  For example, if it is known that the process
that produced the lots of uranium oxide maintains a "small" variation (e.g.
- from in-process sampling), then that would provide the reasoning that the
reader was asking about.

Bob Lambert
The Associates
Salt Lake City, Utah

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Slack [SMTP:tom_sas@DUESOUTH.NET]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:17 AM
> To:   SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject:      Re: Convincing non-believers
>
> 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.
>
> Tom Slack
> Aiken, SC
>
> 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 >>>
> >Bill,
> >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
> >Lot size.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Good Luck,
> >
> >Tom Slack
> >Aiken, SC
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> > >                                         kossack@netcom.com