At 08:51 PM 5/25/2005, Lee Corbin wrote:
At 09:33 PM 5/25/2005, you wrote:
>Richard writes
>
> > >How, essentially, does this differ from the casino game of
> > >roulette?
>
><SNIP>
>
>LC: I don't believe that there are lucky people, except as a perfectly
>ordinary and expected random fluctuation.
RM: Obviously it will be difficult to quantify the term "lucky," but some
people do win regularly at roulette. Some also win the lottery, a very
*lucky* few more than once. Then there was the kite-maker who was in
Hiroshima during the bombing who then drove home to tell his wife about
it---in Nagasaki (unlucky). One can always cite "perfectly ordinary and
expected random fluctuations," for just about any event. Reliance on
"perfectly ordinary and expected random fluctuations" is fine if you
establish your criteria for significance---the statistician Fisher set it
at 1 in 20 (p<0.05---and if we're doing multiple correlations, then we use
the Bonferroni adjustment <<
http://home.clara.net/sisa/bonhlp.htm>>. So, I
guess this is a good place to ask: what is your criteria for significance
for the type of experiment I suggest?
>LC: If there were, don't you
>think that it would pay the casinos to find these people and keep
>them from playing?
RM: Objection. Calls for speculation. I don't operate a casino, so I
really don't know what business decisions they may make. In fact, I'm fine
NOT knowing what business decisions they make.
>LC: And why haven't the psychics been all over
>this?
>RM: More speculation. Please define "psychic." If you're including the
>engineers like Robert Jahn (formerly) with the PEAR lab, I suspect he--and
>others there have looked into it. If you're including Madame Leanne down
>on Chartres Street in New Orleans, then, no--I don't think she cares one
>way or the other. She's probably more interested in black cats, incense,
>money and that sort of thing. If you're including Rupert Sheldrake in
>this category, then I'd probably have to ask you *why* you've included
>him. *Psychic* covers a lot of territory.
>As for the term "all over" (sorry, I got this from my editors) you'll
>probably have to explain yourself on this one too. The inference seems to
>suggest that all the psychics--including Madame Leanne, Jahn, Sheldrake,
>et al--are banding together, marching down some street, banner held high
>with----*something* written on it. Maybe: "Luck is real and demonstrable
>at the p<0.0005 level." I don't recall seeing anything of the sort, so,
>by those critera, I guess I shouldn't try that experiment, eh? Gee.
>LC: Besides, there are plenty of scientists who'd lust *jove*
>to prove this.
RM (embarking on an extended rant that only *appears* to be off the
subject, but actually addresses the criteria many scientists use in
choosing what to investigate):
Yes. But *only* if some agency blurts out funding for it. Why did Texas
A&M scientists spend months studying how to turn lead into gold? Because
someone *paid* them to do it. Actually, there's a much better smoking
gun: The investigation of the WTC Surge Clouds.
Remember the 9-11 dust clouds that roared up the street at 35 mph? They
choked everyone in sight with a mix of pH10.0 (Drano strength) Portland
cement, mercury, tiny bits of Am241 (from hundreds of smoke detectors at 1
uCi each)-
Now, as a scientist, I'm sure you are aware that NIOSH and OSHA set
standards for exposure that are given in milligrams per cubic meter. There
is even such a standard for particulate---including respirable particulate
(such as was in the aforementioned dust cloud.) Now, for the past four
years there have been hundreds of academic "exposure experts" slogging away
at this exposure issue, but I cannot recall reading where anyone (EPA,
NIOSH, anyone at Rutgers) ever published what the density of that dust
cloud was in milligrams per cubic meter. Maybe they did, and IF they did,
three cheers for them! But I don't think it's ever been done by any of
these smart guys.
If there are "plenty" of scientists working on the WTC dust cloud
exposures, and they still haven't told us what the density of that dust
cloud was, at, say, Church street in NYC on that bad day, then how can we
expect these same guys to even consider exploring something as mundane as
what I suggested in an earlier post?
Sorry to all for the long-winded reply. Anyone here care to try their hand
at guessing what the average density of the WTC surge clouds were? Be the
first on the Net with an answer. ---Unless, of course, you can find it in
the documents--which, IF you can---you'd be. . .well, *lucky.* And I, of
course, will humbly eat parbroiled crow and apologize to those hard-working
environmental scientists over at the EPA and NIOSH and OSHA---and even
those guys at Rutgers.
Bottom line: Many scientists fail to study things not because it's worth
studying, but because no one drops a wad of $1000 bills on their desk
beforehand---and agrees to build a new Faculty Lounge over the old tritium
"storage" pit behind the maintenance shed.
RMiller
Received on Wed May 25 2005 - 23:47:26 PDT