southsider2k5 Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1721874,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 When a new method of measuring a piece of data is developed and it produces results that are at odds with other estimates of that data...the first thing you should do is check repeatedly to make sure your method is accurate. In every case they tested, they found a pattern of cocaine use 2-3 times the normal estimates. The immediate suggestion here is not that the other estimates are wrong, but that the new measuring technique has some flaw that is not understood. I need to see a lot more evidence before I say that the old estimates are wrong and the new technique is giving a better result. Who's to say that the lab isn't contaminated? Who's to say that the residue from the Cocaine doesn't build up in places in the sediment and get released at variable times? Who's to say something else couldn't be contaminating the measurement either in the lab or in the river itself? If it works it'll be a useful method, but the data there doesn't tell me it works. If anything...I'd consider the fact that it doesn't match current estimates to be an argument that it doesn't work yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.