Changes

::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location.  There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so.  '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry.  Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes.  But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles.  Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves.  So - how do you intend to define your population?

::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location.  There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so.  '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry.  Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes.  But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles.  Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves.  So - how do you intend to define your population?

::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists.  But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case.  Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer?  If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me?  It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so?  Only proper research can tell.  But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.

::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists.  But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case.  Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer?  If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me?  It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so?  Only proper research can tell.  But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.

::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons.  No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition.  That proves absolutely nothing, and it is a fallacy to say that "it is unmistakeable".  Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness.  But it would not make it true.    I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office - which is apparently completely true.  However, the fact that they closely correlate is no proof whatsoever of causation.

::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons.  No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition - the population sample you provide is biased, as you and only you have selected it, and you have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer.  This sample does not include the very many the pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer.  This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'.  Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness.  But it would not make it true.    I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office - which is apparently completely true.  However, the fact that they closely correlate is no proof whatsoever of causation.   As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim. 

::*Finally, what are those medical reasons?  What is your proposed theory of causation?  Why would an acute observer expect it?  If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::*Finally, what are those medical reasons?  What is your proposed theory of causation?  Why would an acute observer expect it?  If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting.  [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting.  [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)