3 ms·
"If an area get's 10% more cancer than expected but twice the breast cancer then there is probably a local cause." That is incorrect: deviation percentage is m
by cjensen 12y ago
"If an area get's 10% more cancer than expected but twice the breast cancer then there is probably a local cause." That is incorrect: deviation percentage is meaningless without a sample size. In a group of 100 people, twice the rate of cancer means nothing. In a group of 1 Billion people, 10% is significant.
You're right that blood cancer is the most important part of the article... those are the cancers which are most common in children and therefore the cancers most likely to be found in an coincidental cluster in children.
- Retric 12y ago10% for even just 1 million people is significant... Wait, let's look at a map of US cancer rates: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/state.htm http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/state.htm Hmm, yep that's plenty of data and a wide enough gap to support regional differences. Yet, there are reasons you don't hear state X has higher incidents of cancer. Edit: Sorry for the flippant response, but no shit sample size matters.
- cjensen 12y agoNo worries. My point is really to say, "what kind of sample size do you have in mind"? In this instance, the sample size seems to be everyone in a particular region who has played soccer. That's just too vague, in my opinion, to attempt to draw a conclusion.