Computer Glitch May Change Findings

AP via Newsday ^ | June 5, 2002, 5:44 PM EDT | JOHN HEILPRIN

[Jean S]

Scientists revising a study of tiny pollution particles from diesel engines and power plants found a computer glitch that might mean less health risk than previously thought and could delay new federal rules.

Research by investigators at Johns Hopkins University's biostatistics department indicates the software used for the study of 90 large American cities was overestimating the rise in the typical mortality rate.

[Black Agnes]

Yes, but correlations mean nothing to these people. They subscribe to the 'one molecule' will kill millions theory. Cost is irrelevant to these people. They don't care if their regulations cost more to implement than actually paying for the extra hospital stays. After all, you, the taxpayer, pay for them!

[Winston Smith]

And don't forget the wild Lynx hair particles mysteriously found in the computer programmers bedroom. It would be intresting knowing just WHO wrote this program, and how many other "Bugs" could be found.

[AmericaUnited]

The huge financial stress many people face every day, from having to pay for the extra cost of stupid ecco regulations, kills more people than if they had directly injected themselves with all of the diesel particulate molecules floating over the entire state of NY.

[nightdriver]

"The original study found pollution particles responsible for higher death rates and more hospital stays among the elderly.

Where's their data? Of course there's no bias or pre-conceived notions involved here or anything like that. (/sarcasm)

[Dan(9698)]

There is always a "problem" when you extrapolate.

Any software that predicts uses a lot of assumptions. Each of the assumptions is a source of error. The result will be determined by the one who chose the assumptions and what weight each is given.

I bet a dollar to a donut they cannot go back a few decades and enter their assumptions and get the result as it exists now.

[r9etb]

From what little the article tells us, this software appears to have been used only to do the statistics. I would be very surprised if they had actually written the code themselves -- much more likely, it was a standard package, of which there are many, and which have years of heritage -- meaning that they are all very well debugged.

Far more likely the error was in the setup -- IOW, a human error. And the next question in my mind is whether the error was deliberate, the result of preconceived notions, or a simple fat-finger.

Considering how long those data have been out on the street, I have a hard time believing it's purely an accident.

[Zon]

Yep, when I read the article I thought here starts the back-peddling. Blame it on technology, not human error.

[GailA]

But I just know it's global warming...er or is that global cooling??? I'm so cornfused!

[Zon]

I had the opportunity to talk to a friend's twelve year old son last Sunday while we were playing disc golf. Pretty smart kid into computers and other technologies. Anyhow, during one of our conversations I found myself telling him that back in the mid 1970s global cooling was all the talk of ecologist and what not -- pretty much the same as they talk about global warming today.

I've always been straight with him as I am with all children because (as if anyone needs a reason to respect children -- honest to fault they are) actually I respect children more than adults. Anyhow, the way I said it, sort of mater-of-factly in passing, his response was "really!". "Yep, pretty much like how they talk today, but now it's about the opposite -- global warming." I could see his expression change to one of dismay as he realized that what his teachers had been teaching him, they neglected to tell him such an important piece of information.

!  Chalk one more up for the good guys -- subtract one from the bad guys. That's how it works. For every point won the opposing side looses one. As the honest people grow stronger, more powerful, the deceivers shrink weaker. It's a unique leverage.