I like this comment (with the nice explanation of the experiment): http://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/miniboone_confirms_neutrino_anomaly-232739 http://ww

I like this comment (with the nice explanation of the experiment): http://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/miniboone_confirms_neutrino_anomaly-232739 http://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/miniboone_confirms_n... Author's take: "The simple collecting more data and making the result stronger from a statistical standpoint in these cases does not help convince your peer: as I said, this is systematic in nature, so the problem has to be attacked by other means." On one side he is "an experimental particle physicist who works for the INFN at the University of Padova, and collaborates with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC" but also writes "I am not a true expert in these matters so my comments would probably be deceiving or plain fallacious." For him, it seems there is still a need for some other kind of approach before something more specific than "the apparent excess was consistently measured through the years" can be claimed.