Changes

Actually, I'm afraid such a rate would not be statistically significant, especially with just the information you've provided in that hypothetical. And there is another major flaw in your example. Whilst of course such a high rate would be alarming, the sample does not link with the rate you have provided since the rate is for non-smoker whilst the sample is strictly smokers. As such to try and make a comparison between that sample and that figure is impossible. Certainly with a larger sample you could compare the rates of lung cancer amongst smokers and non-smokers and would most definitely find it to be much higher amongst the former. The fact is that the situation with regards to breast cancer in hollywood may ''appear'' to be like that hypothetical situation you have described, but as I have said repeatedly you have not accurately defined the sample size, and as such you cannot even state what the actual breast cancer rate is within that. Also, if in the smokers case you deliberately chose people who had lung cancer then you would be showing bias in the analysis. That is exactly what has been going on in the main article since people have been selected exclusively because they had cancer at a young age. There is no mention of any actresses who were diagnosed at a later age, which would affect the average, and this then links back into the point about the undefined actual number of 'hollywood' actresses. I have stated these points before and it is necessary to read the whole of my post to see this. As I have also stated I would rather you didn't make personal attacks against me, I have not done the same, please stick to discussing the actual issues. For one thing this example is not even comparable to the cigarettes causing cancer issue, which of course they most certainly do! No actual biological explanation for the apparent mystery is put forward and so I am not even trying to deny any cause, such as tobacco. Trying to frame my arguments in that light is only going to be counter-productive I fear. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 10:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Actually, I'm afraid such a rate would not be statistically significant, especially with just the information you've provided in that hypothetical. And there is another major flaw in your example. Whilst of course such a high rate would be alarming, the sample does not link with the rate you have provided since the rate is for non-smoker whilst the sample is strictly smokers. As such to try and make a comparison between that sample and that figure is impossible. Certainly with a larger sample you could compare the rates of lung cancer amongst smokers and non-smokers and would most definitely find it to be much higher amongst the former. The fact is that the situation with regards to breast cancer in hollywood may ''appear'' to be like that hypothetical situation you have described, but as I have said repeatedly you have not accurately defined the sample size, and as such you cannot even state what the actual breast cancer rate is within that. Also, if in the smokers case you deliberately chose people who had lung cancer then you would be showing bias in the analysis. That is exactly what has been going on in the main article since people have been selected exclusively because they had cancer at a young age. There is no mention of any actresses who were diagnosed at a later age, which would affect the average, and this then links back into the point about the undefined actual number of 'hollywood' actresses. I have stated these points before and it is necessary to read the whole of my post to see this. As I have also stated I would rather you didn't make personal attacks against me, I have not done the same, please stick to discussing the actual issues. For one thing this example is not even comparable to the cigarettes causing cancer issue, which of course they most certainly do! No actual biological explanation for the apparent mystery is put forward and so I am not even trying to deny any cause, such as tobacco. Trying to frame my arguments in that light is only going to be counter-productive I fear. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 10:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)