Reason for and a critical question about 2012's 6.9% decline in nuclear production

[PamW]

36. Mathematical ILLITERACY at play

kristopher states
"A sample size of 2" is what you need to reconsider. You can dispute it all you want but the fact remains that the observed failure rate for nuclear reactors is far higher than you are suggesting.


The significance of the low value of the number 2 is TOTALLY LOST on kristopher who evidently doesn't know probability theory and confidence intervals.

The problem with a sample size of 2; is that any statistics based on that sample are pretty much WORTHLESS.

Hence, contrary to kristopher's claim; you can't determine that the observed failure rate is too high.

kristopher; it's like asking only 2 random people in October of 2012 about how they are going to vote for President.

The percentage difference in popular vote between Obama and Romney was much too small to make any type of reasonable prediction.

Heck; you have almost a 25% chance of both random people saying they were voting for Romney. So how would one accurately predict the Obama victory based on that sampling.

kristopher doesn't know WORTHLESS data when he sees it.

PamW