Ah, thanks for the correction. I haven't read the article in a while and I just glanced back through it. > Which is rather suspect, considering it appears to h

Ah, thanks for the correction. I haven't read the article in a while and I just glanced back through it. > Which is rather suspect, considering it appears to have been cherry-picked from amongst the seven studies the author referenced. It's near the middle of the range, though (a bit on the high end), so it seems like a reasonable assumption.