In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 14:23:53 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:
Do you have the database of withdrawn applications and why they were
withdrawn?

A while back I referred to a submission by Jack Heineman against
approval of another organisation's application for GM work in NZ.

The other organisation withdrew the application.

Was Dr Ingham's work, connected with the EPA, the cause of a
dangerous or dubious application being withdrawn?

No idea. You'll have to eyeball your regulator's documentation, I
would think.

That's right, where do they keep the records of withdrawn applications and
what has caused the withdrawal?

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 13:51:31 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

=======================================
Evidence in Rebuttal - Life Sciences Network
20 February 2001, 9:24 am
Press Release: New Zealand Life Sciences Network

Conclusion:

In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented
inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information to the Royal
Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information
and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not
scientifically supportable.

As they want others to be exact so they must be taken at their word.

But they leave plenty of room for misunderstanding:

Read the rest of it.

I did.

In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented
inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information

That could either mean that all the info is classifed that way, or
rather that there has been some innacuracy, some lack of care. and
futhermore the interesting admission by Life Sciences Network -
exaggeration by Ingham's submission. So they are admitting some
truth to it just exaggerated.

Grasping at straws?
There is a tiny bit of truth in everything, that's life.

to the Royal
Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information
and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not
scientifically supportable.

And the tone of that is that it is unlikely to kill off all the
plant life on the planet, therefore go ahead with it.

Nope. If some of it's wrong, then it must all be looked at
sceptically. And that's what happens.

Which is how to look at GM. But more than scepticism, rather fear.

In sci.agriculture Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
On 1 Sep 2003 11:52:50 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
No you need to be quite good at the subject to deal properly with
outliers. I am thinking that sometimes people do not eliminate them when
they should be, and others do but don't acknowledge it.

Imagine you represent a conservative govt applying as little as possible
health funding to a village of 100 people of mainly low income, based on
whether they can pay for it themselves or not. When calculating the
average will you include the income of the one multi-millionaire in the
village? That would make the average income rather higher, so you can fund
less. But the other 99 people would have no ability to pay, consequently.
The place would become a real eyesore.

But that's not an outlier problem, Brian. Indeed, there's not much of
a statistical problem in it :-)

Except in that part of statistics is deciding what measures to use and
what to measure.

You have sampled the whole population,
you know the income of each and every individual in it, you know their
average income. The average is the average. It is just not a very good
descriptor for what the politicians want to describe.

Then you might change to the middle income. That might not work either if
there is a big tail of very low incomes.

Then if you were looking for how much the village could potentially donate
to a cause would the high earner still be an outlier?

Yes. In that situation average income might be a more suitable
descriptor. But again, this is not an outlier problem. The high earner
is known to be part of the population studied, so the data point
representing his income can never be considered an outlier.

So you might change from a purely latitude and longitude basis for the
sample to some other. Perhaps it is the subset of employees in the region.

Say you wanted to persuade people that potatoes in general are not high on
solanine. How many sweet potatoes are you allowed in the sample?
Given the figures the sweet potatoes might appear as outliers. This might
lead back to calling into question whether a sweet potato is a potato.

I think Gordon has a little point, that he needed to be told a bit more
about the outlier categorizing.

But when you search the web for how
frequently `Monsanto' occurs in studies mentioning outliers, how much do
you get?

On 28 Aug 2003 23:29:25 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 14:23:53 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:
Do you have the database of withdrawn applications and why they were
withdrawn?

A while back I referred to a submission by Jack Heineman against
approval of another organisation's application for GM work in NZ.

The other organisation withdrew the application.

Was Dr Ingham's work, connected with the EPA, the cause of a
dangerous or dubious application being withdrawn?

No idea. You'll have to eyeball your regulator's documentation, I
would think.

That's right, where do they keep the records of withdrawn applications and
what has caused the withdrawal?

I suspect a bash at Google would find some information about this if
it was at all interesting. If you don't find anything, it's likely
that there was nothing newsworthy about it. Everything vaguely
newsworth is published on the Web, IME

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 23:29:25 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 14:23:53 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:
Do you have the database of withdrawn applications and why they were
withdrawn?

A while back I referred to a submission by Jack Heineman against
approval of another organisation's application for GM work in NZ.

The other organisation withdrew the application.

Was Dr Ingham's work, connected with the EPA, the cause of a
dangerous or dubious application being withdrawn?

No idea. You'll have to eyeball your regulator's documentation, I
would think.

That's right, where do they keep the records of withdrawn applications and
what has caused the withdrawal?

I suspect a bash at Google would find some information about this if
it was at all interesting. If you don't find anything, it's likely
that there was nothing newsworthy about it. Everything vaguely
newsworth is published on the Web, IME :)

I have checked again and
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/bbep/
is still not even giving out data for ordinary applications any
more.

Somehow I think the data about withdrawn applications in USA will be
kept covered. Then we won't be able to verify the claim about the
withdrawal of the GM Klebsiella application following Ingham's
research findings.

On 3 Sep 2003 09:41:16 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 23:29:25 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 14:23:53 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:
Do you have the database of withdrawn applications and why they were
withdrawn?

A while back I referred to a submission by Jack Heineman against
approval of another organisation's application for GM work in NZ.

The other organisation withdrew the application.

Was Dr Ingham's work, connected with the EPA, the cause of a
dangerous or dubious application being withdrawn?

No idea. You'll have to eyeball your regulator's documentation, I
would think.

That's right, where do they keep the records of withdrawn applications and
what has caused the withdrawal?

I suspect a bash at Google would find some information about this if
it was at all interesting. If you don't find anything, it's likely
that there was nothing newsworthy about it. Everything vaguely
newsworth is published on the Web, IME :)

I have checked again and
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/bbep/
is still not even giving out data for ordinary applications any
more.

Somehow I think the data about withdrawn applications in USA will be
kept covered. Then we won't be able to verify the claim about the
withdrawal of the GM Klebsiella application following Ingham's
research findings.

I suspect that if there was anything to it, you would find much
conspiracy theory conjecture on the net. Nothing there? Nothing to it,
IMHO.