Re: The Numbers Game

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/1/2004 2:33:26 AM Central Standard Time,

firecoupleinca@... writes:

LOL, yes, I may be a size 6/8, but I AM still a REAL woman (Marta,

Anne, Jo, Lee, etc....are you all REAL too?) I DO have curves -

plenty of them and in all the right places- (Ray will vouch for

that!) and I am darn grateful for where I am today and what this

wonderful surgery has done for me and my life!!

________________________________________________

I read this Email, And can only assume it was directed at me because I

teasingly told another that real women have curves. Geeze....Sometimes you can't

say anything without somebody fussing.

If your happy with an 8, More power to you as you were able to get there.

Me on the otherhand, probabally never see a size 8 outside of something

terrible like a terminal illness....

Liz (I think it Was) said she had stopped at a 14, and I think she looks

pretty damned good. I told her so and I appologize if my teasing to her

offended you. Discrimination was never the intention, just support telling her

that

she looked good and was trying to tell her the way I see it. You know everyone

deserves support.

My goal was never a certain size, just normal. This , At 242, is the most

normal I Have EVER been. I don't think I will ever see single digit sizes due

to my body structure my biggest worry is that I may never see sizes outside

the plus department.

The society of today has the size 8 or whatever as the normal, and parade

emaciated women to pound this into our kids heads. The stats tell a different

story. A few weeks ago I sent a link that was telling that reasearch busted

this myth. The AVERAGE woman is a 14 not 8. So we should not feel ashamed

because we aren't teeny tiny.

Any further losses will be unknown territory for me, because as an adult

I have never been 250 or below, so I have no clue what size goes with what

weight. and Actually size isn't my goal as I said before my goal was normal. I

do

tend to see women who are heavier(Not obese, but with a little more rounded)

are more attractive. That is my opinion and you know what they say about

opinions.

I see people on the revision boards that are around 200 getting revisions

to lose small amount of weight(How they get the damned things approved I'll

never know!!) There is one lady who is 198 and is scheduled to revise her RNY

to a distal. Hell, 198 would be absolute dream to me...And a few others.(right

Jim?)

So don't be pissed at me because I don't think that a size 8 is perfect.

I have stated before that I don't want to be a size 8. So what? That's how I

feel, It doesn't hurt anyone and I'm not going to appologize for it. We're all

different and that's how it all goes. I'm damned lucky to be in my 22's

instead of 34's Like I was in 2002. Maybe some day I will be lower and like it,

But

as for now, I fear that losing that much weight will age me. I'm almost 40 now

and need all the help I can get.

in Bama

VBG 1982 (lost from 433lbs to 270's)

VBG -RNY1996 revision(Lost from 343 to 299)

RNY-DS revision Dec 2002 -down 135 lbs (377.7 to 242.2 and still going)

Homepage address- http://hometown.aol.com/mdl1031/myhomepage/profile.html

Many thanks to Dr. K willing to take on a 3rd timer....LOL

[Guest guest]

Just my opinion Mel, but your e-mail would have been perfect if you

would have just stopped at " I'm sorry if I offended you... "

> In a message dated 4/1/2004 2:33:26 AM Central Standard Time,

> firecoupleinca@y... writes:

I am darn grateful for what this

> wonderful surgery has done for me and my life!!

> ________________________________________________

> I read this Email, And can only assume it was directed at me

I appologize if my teasing to her

> offended you.

> So don't be pissed at me because I don't think that a size 8

is perfect.

> I have stated before that I don't want to be a size 8. So what?

That's how I

> feel, It doesn't hurt anyone and I'm not going to appologize for

it.

>

> in Bama

> VBG 1982 (lost from 433lbs to 270's)

> VBG -RNY1996 revision(Lost from 343 to 299)

> RNY-DS revision Dec 2002 -down 135 lbs (377.7 to 242.2 and still

going)

> Homepage address-

http://hometown.aol.com/mdl1031/myhomepage/profile.html

> Many thanks to Dr. K willing to take on a 3rd timer....LOL

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/1/2004 1:30:56 PM Central Standard Time,

pwofak@... writes:

We men don't have a clue, and we don't look at any other man and

just KNOW that they are a 32 regular. LOL Do you women learn these

things in a secret class that we men don't know about??

......these classes are a lot of fun too Of course we can't you

guys about them.

PW

lap ds 7-15-03

down 118 pounds

________________________________

LOL...I must have missed the classes also because I have no clue wether a

woman is a 12 or an 8, just wether she looks good (or healthy) or not...Same

with

men. I have no clue.....Do they not let Morbidly obese people in these

classes? (Winking)

in Bama

VBG 1982 (lost from 433lbs to 270's)

VBG -RNY1996 revision(Lost from 343 to 299)

RNY-DS revision Dec 2002 -down 135 lbs (377.7 to 242.2 and still going)

Homepage address- http://hometown.aol.com/mdl1031/myhomepage/profile.html

Many thanks to Dr. K willing to take on a 3rd timer....LOL

[Guest guest]

It's amusing to those of us not of the " curvaceous " sex, all the concern

about size. All the women I know are so worried about being a 18 or a 12 or

a -3X. I just don't understand that at all. Men tend to not worry about

that. I mean, when was the last time you heard two men discussing their

pants size? OR, when did you hear a group of men say, " I just want to loose

a couple of more inches and then I'll be a 28 waist " ? You just don't hear

that, Now you DO hear comments about wishing for a better set of abs, or

better arm muscles but not about clothes sizes. And I bitch because in one

day I can gain 15 pounds (up 10 from 2 days ago), but I don't bitch about

being a 42 pants size.

I can bitch with you women about the manufactures, though. I hate the fact

that I can wear an extra large shirt from some companies while from other

companies an XL won't button. They should standardize all sizes-men's' and

women's' sizes and make them all ONE size code. Same with bra sizes. I mean,

what is up with that? And while on that subject, what's up with the way

those bras fasten? Don't the manufacturers know that men cannot negotiate a

bra hook???????? :-)

And another thing; how is it that one woman can look at another and

INSTANTLY know the size dress the woman wears? And why do you care so much?

We men don't have a clue, and we don't look at any other man and just KNOW

that they are a 32 regular. LOL Do you women learn these things in a

secret class that we men don't know about??

Jim

Who hopes he added some levity to the posting today.

_____

From: MDL1031@... [mailto:MDL1031@...]

Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 3:56 AM

Subject: Re: The numbers game

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/1/2004 4:13:11 PM Central Standard Time,

sonofmosiah@... writes:

I think that as we MO people become more-or-less normal size (and some of us

have achieved more normalcy than others of us) our vision does change.

Did any of this make any sense at all?

Jim

______________________________

Jim,

I experienced it, but not in the same way. When I see a MO person I

become anxious. I want so bad to tell them about the surgery...I feel for them

because I know the pain, the shame, and the abnormal feeling. I remember how, I

assumed everyone who was laughing was laughing at me...And was right some of the

time. To me normal will never include looking at obese people with that idea.

I guess I will alway be that MO person no matter what the scales say. I wish

there was an easy way to tell them about the surgery without risking someone

getting mad and cussing you out...Know what I mean?

My sister is 370+ and I keep telling her to do something. She is not

going to do it any time soon because of money and she sees only the here and now

and don't think about saving for later. I am so afraid that Bc/Bs and the likes

will cut off paying for any WLS and where will she be? When we are out, I

hear people laughing and I wonder if she feels the same as I did , and then look

at her face and realize she does. It tears me up inside. now when I get rid of

too big clothes, I don't offer them to her because she can't wear the newer

ones. At least early in my surgery, I would be able to give them to her.

I hope that I never change to where I look at a MO person

with...Disgust(?)...That person made me who I am today, I hope it gives me

compassion and the

ability to see inside the person for what counts and not look at the outside

covering for bias.

in Bama

VBG 1982 (lost from 433lbs to 270's)

VBG -RNY1996 revision(Lost from 343 to 299)

RNY-DS revision Dec 2002 -down 135 lbs (377.7 to 242.2 and still going)

Homepage address- http://hometown.aol.com/mdl1031/myhomepage/profile.html

Many thanks to Dr. K willing to take on a 3rd timer....LOL

[Guest guest]

Hey Jim,

.........see responses below....

> It's amusing to those of us not of the " curvaceous " sex, all the

concern about size. All the women I know are so worried about being a

18 or a 12 or a -3X. I just don't understand that at all. Men tend to

not worry about that. I mean, when was the last time you heard two

men discussing their pants size? OR, when did you hear a group of men

say, " I just want to loose a couple of more inches and then I'll be a

28 waist " ? You just don't hear that, Now you DO hear comments about

wishing for a better set of abs, or better arm muscles but not about

clothes sizes. And I bitch because in one day I can gain 15 pounds

(up 10 from 2 days ago), but I don't bitch about being a 42 pants

size.

>

...............yes some are obscessed with sizes, it gives you a

visual when you know a size... personally I prefer to think of as

being healthy and having allparts of this body fitting in one size

from top to bottom, instead of a different size on top and a

different size on the bottom.

> I can bitch with you women about the manufactures, though. I hate

the fact that I can wear an extra large shirt from some companies

while from other companies an XL won't button. They should

standardize all sizes-men's' and women's' sizes and make them all ONE

size code.

........that sure would make life simpler wouldn't it

Jim...unfortunately I do not think we will see this ever.

Same with bra sizes. I mean, what is up with that? And while on that

subject, what's up with the way those bras fasten? Don't the

manufacturers know that men cannot negotiate a bra hook???????? :-)

........need lesson's Jim ??? <BG> My dh has mastered them just fine.

I can check and see what he would charge for a lesson.

>

> And another thing; how is it that one woman can look at another and

> INSTANTLY know the size dress the woman wears? And why do you care

so much?

.........it is a jealously thing.....

> We men don't have a clue, and we don't look at any other man and

just KNOW that they are a 32 regular. LOL Do you women learn these

things in a secret class that we men don't know about??

......these classes are a lot of fun too Of course we can't you

guys about them.

PW

lap ds 7-15-03

down 118 pounds

5' 3 "

sw/cw/goal~(healthy)

320/202/???

>

>

>

> Jim

>

> Who hopes he added some levity to the posting today.

>

[Guest guest]

I was not angry or pissed when I wrote that post.....

I was simply stating my feelings on the matter of how smaller size

women are sometimes viewed here. Many of you know that I have gotten

some pretty hateful emails in the past about being a " lightweight "

and not deserving of this surgery as well as some criticizing me for

being where I am today.

I didn't ask anyone for an apology and I don't think anyone SHOULD

apologize for their goals! We are all unique and no one should be

made to feel " less than " because they are larger or smaller than

another.

I don't judge anyone here by their dress size. It is what's between

their ears that makes them who they are...their attutude towards

others, how they react and respond, and whether they can still treat

them with respect even if they disagree with something that is said.

Like Marta said , we are all free to express our opinions here and I

did (tactfully I thought).....and although it wasn't directed at

anyone in particular, I didn't expect a verbal attack over it....

I said what I had to say on the subject, and I am not going to let

this become one of those long raging back and forth threads so this

is my last word on it.

Everyone here is different, we all started out different shapes and

sizes and we all end up different as well. But we all have three

things thing in common, obesity, the DS, and the fact that we are all

human. For those reasons I belong to this group where for the most

part everyone treats everyone else with respect and dignity and

celebrates their acheivements, whether that be a 1 pound loss of 100!

We all pray for our brothers and sisters as they go through the

journey that many of us have already taken, we offer advice and

opinions, and we share our joys, triumphs and sorrows. We all know

the pain and heartbreak of obesity and it's complications and many of

us now know the freedom and the wonderful rewards that come from

shedding that old skin and finding the new, slimmer, healthier person

inside of us. Whether that person ends up a size 8 or 18, as long as

you are happy with yourself, who cares about the numbers? Not I!

Cindee

> > In a message dated 4/1/2004 2:33:26 AM Central Standard Time,

>

> > firecoupleinca@y... writes:

> I am darn grateful for what this

> > wonderful surgery has done for me and my life!!

> > ________________________________________________

> > I read this Email, And can only assume it was directed at me

> I appologize if my teasing to her

> > offended you.

> > So don't be pissed at me because I don't think that a size 8

> is perfect.

> > I have stated before that I don't want to be a size 8. So what?

> That's how I

> > feel, It doesn't hurt anyone and I'm not going to appologize for

> it.

> >

> > in Bama

> > VBG 1982 (lost from 433lbs to 270's)

> > VBG -RNY1996 revision(Lost from 343 to 299)

> > RNY-DS revision Dec 2002 -down 135 lbs (377.7 to 242.2 and still

> going)

> > Homepage address-

> http://hometown.aol.com/mdl1031/myhomepage/profile.html

> > Many thanks to Dr. K willing to take on a 3rd timer....LOL

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Only if you volunteer to let me practice on you. :-)

_____

From: pwofak [mailto:pwofak@...]

Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:27 AM

Subject: Re: The numbers game

* Hey Jim,

.........see responses below....

Don't the manufacturers know that men cannot negotiate a bra hook????????

:-)

........need lesson's Jim ??? <BG> My dh has mastered them just fine.

I can check and see what he would charge for a lesson.

[Guest guest]

Sindee, you bring up an interesting point. And, I'm not sure just how to

articulate it the best way, so I'll use me as an example.

After loosing so much weight and having the TT change my appearance so much,

I find that I " look " at obese people differently. Before, I looked with

understanding and compassion. Now, I find that unless I stop myself, I

actually stare of obese people the exact same way people stared at me when I

was 400-500 pounds.

I became acutely aware of this last week in Santa . Joanne (the friend

I bullied into the surgery) and I were shopping and a very, very, MO woman

came in s-May. It was as if I could not stop myself from staring at

her. I didn't notice it though, until Joanne pointed out that I was looking

at the woman the way a " skinny person looks at a fat person. " I was shocked,

but more than that, I was disgusted with myself. I wasn't looking at her in

judgment, just in the

My God, that woman is fat " way.

I think that as we MO people become more-or-less normal size (and some of us

have achieved more normalcy than others of us) our vision does change.

Did any of this make any sense at all?

Jim

_____

From: Cindee and Ray [mailto:firecoupleinca@...]

Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:25 PM

Subject: Re: The numbers game

* I was not angry or pissed when I wrote that post.....

I was simply stating my feelings on the matter of how smaller size

women are sometimes viewed here.

[Guest guest]

Oh Jim !

My we have never met ! <blush> Do not know what DH would think of

that one ...will let you know later....he is not home to ask right

now...

we could use a getaway to a beach, any nearby ? lol

PW - who is off in search of a pic of Jim....<bg>

> Only if you volunteer to let me practice on you. :-)

_____

>

> From: pwofak [mailto:pwofak@y...]

> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:27 AM

>

> Subject: Re: The numbers game

>

>

>

> * Hey Jim,

> ........see responses below....

>

> Don't the manufacturers know that men cannot negotiate a bra

hook????????

> :-)

>

> .......need lesson's Jim ??? <BG> My dh has mastered them just

fine.

> I can check and see what he would charge for a lesson.

[Guest guest]

LOL

Now SINDEE would have said, " how soon can ya get here. " LOL

_____

From: pwofak [mailto:pwofak@...]

Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 1:50 PM

Subject: Re: The numbers game

* Oh Jim !

My we have never met ! <blush> Do not know what DH would think of

that one ...will let you know later....he is not home to ask right

now...

we could use a getaway to a beach, any nearby ? lol

PW - who is off in search of a pic of Jim....<bg>

> Only if you volunteer to let me practice on you. :-)

[Guest guest]

Yes, you do make sense! And I too have noticed my vision of others

has changed some as well.....I catch myself looking at MO people in a

different light and have had to work on that issue within myself. But

mostly I tend to point them out to Ray and ask him " was I ever that

big? " Just as I used to compare myself to every woman I walked

past ...LOL, poor Ray used to be covered with bruises from all the

pokes and me asking " is my ass THAT big? "

I do pass out a LOT of Dr K's cards and share my surgery info with

anyone who will listen! I know that if this surgery could work for

me, it will work for others and I am so thrilled with my results that

I can't help sharing!

More often than not, Ray and I will be in a store discussing

different sizes etc...and someone will overhear us and actually come

up to me and ask where I had surgery, what type it was, and how i am

doing since I had it...I think I have been approached by many more

than I have approached myself! I don't hide the fact that I had WLS,

in fact I am proud of what I have accomplished with the ds and the

wonderful Dr's Z and K!

I still don't see myself as others do....I still head for the plus

sizes automatically and I still look at women who are 200+ and think

I am close to the same size as they are, and it is only when Ray

pulls out the pictures and puts the proof in front of my face that I

can actually SEE and accept that I am no longer that 252 pound person

I was 2 years ago. LOL, I was getting hugs in the bar the other night

and I realized that everyone who hugged me could actually wrap his

arms all the way around me AND A FEW EVEN PICKED ME UP OFF THE FLOOR

AND SPUN ME AROUND OFF THE GROUND! Now that is a change! Heck, 2

years ago I was the biggest women in our group of friends, now I am

the smallest, and it is really taking some mental adjusting!

Cindee

> Sindee, you bring up an interesting point. And, I'm not sure just

how to

> articulate it the best way, so I'll use me as an example.

>

>

>

> After loosing so much weight and having the TT change my appearance

so much,

> I find that I " look " at obese people differently. Before, I looked

with

> understanding and compassion. Now, I find that unless I stop

myself, I

> actually stare of obese people the exact same way people stared at

me when I

> was 400-500 pounds.

>

>

>

> I became acutely aware of this last week in Santa . Joanne

(the friend

> I bullied into the surgery) and I were shopping and a very, very,

MO woman

> came in s-May. It was as if I could not stop myself from

staring at

> her. I didn't notice it though, until Joanne pointed out that I was

looking

> at the woman the way a " skinny person looks at a fat person. " I was

shocked,

> but more than that, I was disgusted with myself. I wasn't looking

at her in

> judgment, just in the

> My God, that woman is fat " way.

>

> I think that as we MO people become more-or-less normal size (and

some of us

> have achieved more normalcy than others of us) our vision does

change.

>

>

>

> Did any of this make any sense at all?

>

>

>

> Jim

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: Cindee and Ray [mailto:firecoupleinca@y...]

> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:25 PM

>

> Subject: Re: The numbers game

>

>

>

> * I was not angry or pissed when I wrote that post.....

> I was simply stating my feelings on the matter of how smaller size

> women are sometimes viewed here.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, you do make sense! And I too have noticed my vision of others

has changed some as well.....I catch myself looking at MO people in a

different light and have had to work on that issue within myself. But

mostly I tend to point them out to Ray and ask him " was I ever that

big? " Just as I used to compare myself to every woman I walked

past ...LOL, poor Ray used to be covered with bruises from all the

pokes and me asking " is my ass THAT big? "

I do pass out a LOT of Dr K's cards and share my surgery info with

anyone who will listen! I know that if this surgery could work for

me, it will work for others and I am so thrilled with my results that

I can't help sharing!

More often than not, Ray and I will be in a store discussing

different sizes etc...and someone will overhear us and actually come

up to me and ask where I had surgery, what type it was, and how i am

doing since I had it...I think I have been approached by many more

than I have approached myself! I don't hide the fact that I had WLS,

in fact I am proud of what I have accomplished with the ds and the

wonderful Dr's Z and K!

I still don't see myself as others do....I still head for the plus

sizes automatically and I still look at women who are 200+ and think

I am close to the same size as they are, and it is only when Ray

pulls out the pictures and puts the proof in front of my face that I

can actually SEE and accept that I am no longer that 252 pound person

I was 2 years ago. LOL, I was getting hugs in the bar the other night

and I realized that everyone who hugged me could actually wrap his

arms all the way around me AND A FEW EVEN PICKED ME UP OFF THE FLOOR

AND SPUN ME AROUND OFF THE GROUND! Now that is a change! Heck, 2

years ago I was the biggest women in our group of friends, now I am

the smallest, and it is really taking some mental adjusting!

Cindee

> Sindee, you bring up an interesting point. And, I'm not sure just

how to

> articulate it the best way, so I'll use me as an example.

>

>

>

> After loosing so much weight and having the TT change my appearance

so much,

> I find that I " look " at obese people differently. Before, I looked

with

> understanding and compassion. Now, I find that unless I stop

myself, I

> actually stare of obese people the exact same way people stared at

me when I

> was 400-500 pounds.

>

>

>

> I became acutely aware of this last week in Santa . Joanne

(the friend

> I bullied into the surgery) and I were shopping and a very, very,

MO woman

> came in s-May. It was as if I could not stop myself from

staring at

> her. I didn't notice it though, until Joanne pointed out that I was

looking

> at the woman the way a " skinny person looks at a fat person. " I was

shocked,

> but more than that, I was disgusted with myself. I wasn't looking

at her in

> judgment, just in the

> My God, that woman is fat " way.

>

> I think that as we MO people become more-or-less normal size (and

some of us

> have achieved more normalcy than others of us) our vision does

change.

>

>

>

> Did any of this make any sense at all?

>

>

>

> Jim

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: Cindee and Ray [mailto:firecoupleinca@y...]

> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:25 PM

>

> Subject: Re: The numbers game

>

>

>

> * I was not angry or pissed when I wrote that post.....

> I was simply stating my feelings on the matter of how smaller size

> women are sometimes viewed here.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

OHh, I can be there in about 3 hours if I drive the speed limit!!

By the way, what are we teaching? Clothing sizes? Body types?

Hmm....could be an interesting class considering all the different

sizes and manufacturers, would have to do several wardrobe changes at

least! Does this include lingerie???

Sindee (who just hasn't been her ornery self much since the TT but is

slowly getting back to her normal and warped self!)

> > Only if you volunteer to let me practice on you. :-)

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

OHh, I can be there in about 3 hours if I drive the speed limit!!

By the way, what are we teaching? Clothing sizes? Body types?

Hmm....could be an interesting class considering all the different

sizes and manufacturers, would have to do several wardrobe changes at

least! Does this include lingerie???

Sindee (who just hasn't been her ornery self much since the TT but is

slowly getting back to her normal and warped self!)

> > Only if you volunteer to let me practice on you. :-)

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well I do have to keep my reputation as a pastors wife

But the inner me was thinking it....

PW

> > Only if you volunteer to let me practice on you. :-)

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

i find myself looking too but i am thinking my god did i look like that. and i

feel bad because i am sure i come across as rude when i dont mean to take care

amber

Re: The numbers game

* I was not angry or pissed when I wrote that post.....

I was simply stating my feelings on the matter of how smaller size

women are sometimes viewed here.

[Guest guest]

i find myself looking too but i am thinking my god did i look like that. and i

feel bad because i am sure i come across as rude when i dont mean to take care

amber

Re: The numbers game

* I was not angry or pissed when I wrote that post.....

I was simply stating my feelings on the matter of how smaller size

women are sometimes viewed here.

[Guest guest]

nothing about panflu ? So the risk is real ?

[Guest guest]

The Numbers Game: A Commonsense Guide to Understanding Numbers in the

News, in Politics, and in Life by Blastland and Dilnot.

Gotham, $22 (192p) ISBN 978-1-592-40423-0

Americans are assaulted by numbers, whether it's the latest political

poll or most recent clinical study on caffeine. But what do these

numbers really mean and are they communicating a categorical truth?

Blastland and Dilnot, from the BBC radio show More or Less, embark on

a monumental task of interpreting numerical data and showing how its

misinterpretation often leads to misinformation. " It is one thing to

measure, " they write, " quite another to wrench the numbers to a false

conclusion. " The authors take a close look at statistics that are

accepted at face value—many stemming from scientific or medical

discoveries. They examine everything from the link between alcohol and

breast cancer risk to baseball batting averages to fascinating

assessments of the manipulation of data by politicians when they talk

taxes or the cautionary tale of a U.K. educational measurement program

designed much like No Child Left Behind. Blastland and Dilnot apply

their famously cheeky approach to the analysis of how people are

duped, frightened or falsely encouraged by data. (Jan.)

- Publishers Weekly, 9/22/2008

LIES, DAMN LIES & STATISTICS By KYLE SMITH

December 28, 2008 -- Mull this one carefully. Say a mammogram is 90

percent accurate at spotting patients with breast cancer, and 93

percent accurate at spotting those without breast cancer. Breast

cancer afflicts 0.8 percent of women tested. Your mammogram comes back

positive. How likely is it that you have breast cancer?

Less than 10 percent, says " The Numbers Game " (Gotham), a chatty,

brief, brightly informative and quite possibly essential book by a

pair of blokish Brits (not statisticians or mathletes). An alternate

title might be " When Journalists Do Math " ; " Numbers, " published to

huzzahs in the UK last year, is a genteel carpet-bombing of

alternately hysterical and gullible journalists who misread numbers.

Authors Blastland and Dilnot, who developed the book

from a BBC radio show, break down the breast cancer case as follows.

Of 1,000 women, eight have cancer. Seven of them will find their test

coming back positive. The remaining 992 women don't have cancer, but 7

percent - almost 70 of them - will get a false positive result. Of 77

positive results, only seven are accurate. Don't worry if you got the

question wrong (or rather do worry, a lot), because only two of 24

physicians passed the quiz.

Asking simple questions such as " Is that a big number " (sometimes six

is but a trillion is not), the authors rip through misconceptions

about numbers while betraying no political bias. Readers from left and

right will find many an a-ha moment to savor, and the book is so brisk

and compact (it bills itself as " the Strunk & White of Statistics " )

that it's going to be irresistible to bloggers.

Putting risks in percentage terms is one way to inflate them into

front-page scares: If a possibility rises from a one-in- a-million

shot to two-in-a-million, 100 percent. The American Institute of

Cancer Research told everyone to stop eating all processed meat after

a 21 percent increase in colon cancer was linked to bacon consumption.

Calm down, though: typically, five men in a hundred get colon cancer

in a lifetime. About six would if they all ate two extra slices of

bacon a day. The authors actually praise the sassy British tabloid The

Sun (which like this paper is owned by News Corp.) for dampening the

AICR's warning, saying " it beat the serious newspapers for

intelligible reporting of the risks, being one of the very few to make

it clear how many people could be affected. "

When British consumer debt reached one trillion pounds, the media went

into a swoon, but consider a more common-sense interpretation: your

life. " How much did you owe at age fifteen? Four dollars and twenty

cents - to your brother - how prudent. " Then " when you subsequently

took out a mortgage, why, your debts probably reached a record! This

must have been, obviously, the most miserable, destitute moment of

your life, as you pined for the financial circumstances of a

fifteen-year-old once more. " Isn't increased debt often a sign of a

better life?

The authors are amused at the " astonishing " number of headlines that

contain the scare words " one in four " - such as some twaddle blasted

all over the UK media (London newspapers, even the " quality " ones,

speak in a shrieking, disaster-warning tone that makes ours look shy

by comparison) about the number of British youths who are criminals.

It turned out that " assault " was defined all the way down to kids

pushing or grabbing in the lunch line. Environmental cancer clusters,

food toxicity and the " Sports Illustrated Curse " all get a razzing.

The 2003 community uprising that led to a cellphone tower being

sabotaged in an English village followed nine cancer diagnoses in 20

households located within 500 yards of the tower. While taking care

not to dismiss the villagers' assumptions about linkage between the

tower and the cancer, Blastland and Dilnot compare the distribution of

cancer cases to what happens when you toss a fistful of rice in the

air. The grains on the floor do not take the trouble to spread

themselves out at an equal distance from one another. Here and there

you will find dense clusters.

Sports-radio hosts and listeners, please read the pages on fl ipping

coins before your next soliloquy on how this or that team or player is

" hot " or " cold. " When flipping a coin 30 times, the same side will

commonly land up four, five or six times in a row. It doesn't mean

anything, Vinnie from Queens. Stop poring over the tables and go tell

your wife she looks pretty.

It takes even less familiarity with statistics to be stunned by the

public policy implications in a simple question about abortion

figures. Asked in an experiment to guess how many abortions occur in

the US for every million live births, students gave a wide range of

answers. At the middle of the range was an estimate of 5,000. That

figure is so far from the correct answer - 335,000 - that, in the

words of the physicist Wolfgang i, it is " not even wrong. "

Blastland and Dilnot report that being asked to guess before learning

the correct answer leads to a greater sense of surprise, and students

in the experiment became much more supportive of abortion

restrictions. " Accurate data does matter to people, " the authors rule.

Makers of campaign advertisements, take note.

A chapter on how political pressure to lower waiting times in

socialized Britain led to a fiddling of numbers (that masked the

actual increase) and No Child Left Behind mandates led to similar

legerdemain here illustrates how the stats that matter most are the

ones most likely to be corrupted. Those who suspect Joe the Plumber of

being a plutocrat in a utility belt will take satisfaction in a

chapter about misuse of terms like " average " and " middle class. " You

have more than the average number of feet, did you know that? How

couldn't you, given that some people have none and drag the average

below two? To be less frivolous, if you have average income you are

actually in the top 20 percent of wage earners. A few zillionaires

hoist the average up.

Even senior civil servants polled in Britain in 2005 (and given

multiple choices!) proved utterly bereft of a clue when asked what

income level lands a childless Brit couple in the top 10 percent of

earners. A typical bit of waggishness puts their responses in chart

form: 3 percent of respondents said 100,000 pounds (classified as

" disgraceful " on the chart); 19 percent said 80,000 pounds

( " appalling " ), 21 percent said 65,000 pounds ( " embarrassing " ), 48

percent said 50,000 pounds ( " wrong " ) and only 10 percent gave the

correct answer: a mere 35,000 pounds. (In the US, as of 2007, the

equivalent figure was a much more robust $130,000, which carries its

own implications about the long-term effects of a mildly socialized

economy.)

The flip side of not understanding how little it takes to be rich,

though, is that people don't realize how much of the tax burden the

rich already carry. When asked what percentage of income tax is paid

by the top 1 percent, the most common reply given by British

bureaucrats was 11 percent. Another 38 percent of respondents thought

the share was either 8 percent or 5 percent. In reality, the richest

one percent pay 21 percent of all income tax in the UK - and in the

supposedly regressive US, it's 35 percent. (Hands up, all those who

think American government workers are a lot brighter than their

cousins across the pond. Anyone? Anyone?)

Nearly 100 percent of the statistics presented here are dodgy, so the

book stands in danger of being abused by anti-intellectuals who may

conclude that we should never trust official numbers or make too much

of unlikely coincidences.

Take the case of the cellphone tower and the cancer. Should we brush

off the village's belief that the tower caused the cancer? No. Really,

all the authors ask is for journalists, bloggers and pundits to resist

snap judgments, to dig deeper than the press release, to be smarter.

Nice, but you might as well ask the hackocracy to give up coffee and

booze.

280 days: The length of an average pregnancy, as decided by an 1812

study and never changed by modern medicine. The problem is, by

inducing longer births, doctors actually help encourage that average;

no one is sure what the true average would be. Even with inductions,

though, most pregnancies last three days longer - 283. By giving women

an artificial " due date, " doctors may make them unduly worried when

they go past it.

21%:An extra ounce of bacon a day increased the chance of colon cancer

by this much in men, according to the American Institute of Cancer

Research. While a huge percentage, it neglected to mention what that

increase meant in raw numbers. Turns out, five men out of 100 get

colorectal cancer in their lifetime. Bacon-eating increased it to six.

..001%: The number of people who would ordinarily get acoustic neuroma.

What's that? A tumor near the ear. In 2005, media reported that the

chance of such tumors " doubled " by using cellphones. Almost no one

reported the baseline number. In truth, " doubled " meant that now two

in 100,000 would get them, as compared to one in 100,000.

32: Average lifespan of a man in Swaziland, the lowest in the world,

according to the CIA's Wolrd Factbook. The problem, again, is average.

Most adult males there live much longer - it's the large infancy

mortality rate that drags down the average.

$1,800: Amount the average American's taxes would increase if his cuts

were rescinded, Bush argued this year. This is true, but

averages can be skewed by a large sample that includes outsize earners

- in fact, 80 percent would not have seen that big an increase.

65 lbs: Amount of cooked potatoes a person would have to eat every day

for years to ingest toxic levels of acrylamide. Yet in 1997, when

Swedish researchers found acrylamide in some cooked foods, it set off

a health scare. Reports of dangers often fail to mention the dosage

needed.

4 out of 5: Number of Americans who call themselves " middle class. " In

fact, the middle 20 percent of households in the US make between

$38,000 and $60,000 a year. The middle 60 percent make between $20,000

and $97,000.

70%: Packages that were mailed in the original " six degrees of

separation " experiment that never reached the right person. Though

packages that did arrive had, on average, six steps to reach the

desired recipient, such a large number of undelivered items makes the

conclusion highly dubious.

7%: How much speed-cameras really decreased accidents, according to

one British study. The government had originally claimed a 35 percent

reduction, but sometimes accidents just drop on their own, a

" regression to the mean. " In studying the effects of initiatives like

the smoking ban, one can't attribute every decrease to it; numbers

always change.

1: Number of children sampled in a study about how many hours

middle-income parents read to their kids. In her book " Beginning to

Read: Thinking and Learning About Print, " author Marilyn Jager

had used a study of poor parents that found they read to their kids on

average 25 hours before they started school. mentioned that she

had read to her child between 1,000 and 1,700 hours in that time. To

' shock, groups from the United Way to Everybody Wins used the

comparison as a generalization, saying her example was good for all

middle class parents.

600,000: Assaults on campus because of alcohol, according to the

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse. But if you look at how the survey

defined " assault, " you see that " pushed or hit " was one of the

definitions. Getting pushed at a bar is an assault? Alarmist numbers

are often inflated by broad definitions of crime, substance abuse and

unethical behavior.

35%: Percent of all income tax paid by the top 1 percent of earners.

But in surveys, most people tend to underestimate the amount, just as

they tend to overestimate the number of illegal immigrants (they're

only 0.3 percent of the US population) and underestimate abortions

(335,000 per every million live births in 2006). Political beliefs

exaggerate or diminish the perception of issues.

60 degrees: What the average global temperature could rise to because

of global warming, according to a 2005 report by

climateprediction.net. Unmentioned was that only one simulation

resulted in that high a number, while most came in at 37.5 degrees.

The latter figure is still an increase, but most reports went with

that " wayward tee shot " alarmist figure.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/lies__damn_lies_\

\

_statistics_146124.htm