It is amazing what passes muster as "peer reviewed". Check out this story, they say there was no difference between the residents in that building, and a control group.
And then they present the microscopic work as a table but then say it is "not analyzed". Well it took me about 25 minutes to analyze.
Then they state that smoking has a huge effect on genetic damage. And amazingly, they pick 20 smokers out of 55 of the control group. Almost 40% smokers. Then they fail to mention how many smokers there were in the "resident group".
Then they go on to "test mice" to try to prove a "hormesis effect". Wow, just wow. These pimps for nuclear have no shame.
http://waste.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/1999/TPE99Shieh.pdf
Here is the analysis. Obviously even with them loading the control group with smokers, there is still a large and obvious effect by the radiation. They completely fail to analyze any health defects the people experienced. You have to wonder why they didn't just do a computer simulation, like the whole ICRP dose model is.
Yes the gate keepers are controlling the narrative, using that fluoride to keep people docile.
Makes you want to blow your top....upward. Sociopaths rise to the top.
Funny how you drew a linear trendline through a "shotgun blast" pattern of data. Suggest multidimemsional logistic regression or a Machine Learning approach for higher dimensional data. Its a nonstarter
ReplyDeleteThe average says it all. Kind of funny they only give on 18 data points on 105 subjects. Hmmmmmmm
ReplyDeleteBut thanks for playing well with others, lol
stdev(c6:c23) next time. Or tale the log first since the data is 3 orders of magnitude in range.
ReplyDeleteYou need anout 55 data points for a normal distribution says Shapiro-Wilk
I just bought "Data Analysis with Excel "for my hobby work - fantasy sports.
There are some interesting things you can do beyond average(c6:c23)
The standard deviation is there....maybe you missed it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete