|
|
|
|
|
| | Grow-Op Kids More Healthy Than AveragePage 2 of 2 (1, 2) |
Ahhh.... So now it's agendist doctors creating [fingerquotes on]science[fingerquotes off] in the pursuit of a 'political agenda'...
Yeah... that's it... that's the ticket... 'agendist doctors'... yeah...
Plus...
Ever hear of... Statistical Sampling...?
But again, I am SURE that a person qualified to be "Senior Scientist" at Sick Kids would be too silly or too "dim" to know about such things
I don't think "Senior Scientists" are dim. Suggesting they have based this study on valid, accurate statistical samples is extremely dim. 75 kids out of a population of roughly 10000 kids living in grow ops in this country at anytime...50k grow ops, 20% have kids living in them, roughly 10k kids....would not by any stretch create an accurate result.
If your population consists of just a few hundred people, you might find that you need to survey almost all of them in order to achieve the level of accuracy that you desire. As the population size increases, the percentage of people needed to achieve a high level of accuracy decreases rapidly.
In other words, to achieve the same level of accuracy:
Larger population = Smaller percentage of people surveyed
Smaller population = Larger percentage of people surveyed
There are statistical sample calculators you can use on line that show you the sample size you need for your population in order to create an accurate result. For a survey involving 10000 people, you need 939 samples to create a 99% accurate result with a 4% margin of error. 458 if you're only interested in a 90% accuracy with a 6% margin. Interestingly though, that number stays roughly the same when you increase the population to a million or more. A sample group of 75 kids out of 10000 provides you with slightly better than 50% accuracy. Less than 50% if your margin of error is considered.
So Logically we know the group conducting this study is not interested in doing a "statistical sample" study of kids in grow ops. If that's what they're claiming, they'd be laughed out of the medical journal that published them. What they're doing is offering an opinon about a social issue, one that is predetermined from an agenda of doing what's best for children. It's one thing to suggest kids living in grow ops are healthy, and another to suggest they remain with felonious, dangerous parents. That's why I think the outcome was determined like similar "agendist" studies such as...kids are better off/worse off in two parents homes...kids in same sex families are better/worse off than hetero families...kids of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced/beat their own children, go to jail/be gay than children of non divorced parents...etc etc etc. All silly notions based on unscientific logic and methods with an obvious moral or social bent. | |
|
| Grow-Op Kids More Healthy Than Average
Posted: 7/31/2011 3:02:49 PM | I don't think "Senior Scientists" are dim. Suggesting they have based this study on valid, accurate statistical samples is extremely dim.
No... attempting to criticize medical research studies based on the methods used in 'opinion polls' is what is REALLY, EARTH-SHATTERINGLY dim...
You do know that there are 'more sampling methods under the statistical sun' than you appear to imagine in your woefully inadequate understanding...?
You may want to spend some time studying medical statistics (more commonly, biostatistics)... Basic "Simple Random Sampling", as it is used in opinion polling, is actually one of the LEAST commonly used sampling methods in medical research (though I am certain that the reasons for this are COMPLETELY beyond the grasp of some, well, one, actually)...
So Logically we know the group conducting this study is not interested in doing a "statistical sample" study of kids in grow ops. If that's what they're claiming, they'd be laughed out of the medical journal that published them.
And yet, they DID make that claim... And they WEREN"T "laughed out" of the journal... In fact, they were PUBLISHED, the EXACT OPPOSITE of being "laughed out"...
I dare say that if anything would be "laughed out" it would be your obviously uneducated, ludicruously ignorant efforts to refute the study...
Are we now going to claim the journal itself is 'agendist' for publishing it...?
| |
|
| Grow-Op Kids More Healthy Than Average
Posted: 7/31/2011 3:18:53 PM |
and another to suggest they remain with felonious, dangerous parents.
Sorry dude... but the courts are already against you on that... It has long been held that criminal conduct or felony convictions, in and of themselves, are NOT grounds for removing children unless the crime presents a clear and objective (NOT personal moral) threat to the health and well-being of the child... The courts do NOT hold that "setting a bad example" is sufficient...
WHO is the 'agendist' in this...? Hmmm...? | |
|
| Grow-Op Kids More Healthy Than Average
Posted: 7/31/2011 6:15:32 PM |
No... attempting to criticize medical research studies based on the methods used in 'opinion polls' is what is REALLY, EARTH-SHATTERINGLY dim
Hmm. Where would a dullard like me get the notion that research methods used in opinion poles are the same as the ones used in this particular study???
Ever hear of... Statistical Sampling...?
But again, I am SURE that a person qualified to be "Senior Scientist" at Sick Kids would be too silly or too "dim" to know about such things
I'm just going with what you're throwin' out there. You told me to go learn about statistical sampling because "Senior Scientists" are using statistical samples in this study. So I did. Now let's see what "biostatostics" is all about.
Much of the current literature indicate that sample size in a comparative cohort study is very important and is often neglected in published studies...
The question of how large a study should ideally be is therefore an important one, but it is all too often neglected in practice
So published studies can be inaccurate. Also, most studies generally suggest a larger sample size leads to more accurate results...
The power of a study depends on several factors (see below), but as a general rule higher power is achieved by increasing the sample size
Huh. Wow. Boiled down, that's pretty much the same as all statistical analysis, even opinion poles.
Another issue I had concern with was the method of collecting the sample 75 kids. It seemed to me (and apparently to you as well) that the method of collecting this sample was to open the door and "collect" the first 75 kids child protective services brought in. This is a type of "non-probability" sampling because the large majority of potential samples in this cohort have no chance what so ever of being selected in this sample group. The parents don't get arrested, the kids never show up at the Sick Kids hospital. As well, there was no selection process, no attempt to quanlify the severity of the grow ops or the length of time they were exposed.
The non- probability sampling is convenient and economical, the problem is that the results are unconvincing, as there are no criteria to measure representativeness or to assess the accuracy of estimators
So naturally there is a limit as to what the information gathered can say about a cohort group.
These conditions give rise to exclusion bias, placing limits on how much information a sample can provide about the population. Information about the relationship between sample and population is limited, making it difficult to extrapolate from the sample to the population
An example of what I mean is that grow ops typically get busted before harvesting even the first crop. Rookies make more mistakes than pros. Neighbors are more likely to notice initial changes in a house than established normal behavior in a house. So it's more likely that this study included kids who spent less time in grow ops than other kids whose parents are better at growing and don't get caught. So it's possible that the kids involved in the study were healthier simply because they were on the low side in terms of exposure to contamination. This is only one of many reasonable possibilities for a totally inaccurate result. The other is that the control group is everybody. There is no control group other than children in Canada. The cohort group may be less healthy than kid in The Netherlands for example. They may be way healthier than American kids. Meaningless.
The actual calculation for determining cohort size is way beyond me as is anything more than this cursory evaluation of biostatistical requirements for sample sizes in comparative cohort studies. But I'd like to learn more so if you can explain anything I'm missing without any laughing guy icons I'd love to hear exactly what I'm missing. Show me I'm wrong rather than just using more laughing guy icons.
Sorry dude... but the courts are already against you on that... It has long been held that criminal conduct or felony convictions, in and of themselves, are NOT grounds for removing children unless the crime presents a clear and objective (NOT personal moral) threat to the health and well-being of the child
Dude, I think hacking your furnace vents apart to create optimal growing conditions by spewing a bit of extra co2 and consequently co into the house may qualify as a threat to health. Ripping your breaker panel off the wall and hucking it into the garbage so you can overload all your circuits is definitely a threat to your health. Closing egress access, sealing off air flow from rooms, creating mould, humidity, uv light, hacking out structural elements to your house...all really, remarkably and objectively bad for health.
I think the misconception here is that grow ops aren't really that bad. They are. Of the operations that get busted, 52% of them involve stolen electricity, 90% have uninhabitable levels of mould, 95% are structurally compromised and 75% include altered and dangerous wiring. Then there are the non quantifiable threats. | |
|
| Grow-Op Kids More Healthy Than Average
Posted: 7/31/2011 6:32:53 PM |
Other pros/cons aside, I don't think it's a healthy choice to put their kids at risk by doing something illegal such as this. Regardless of whether the parent agrees or disagrees with current laws, legal consequences would surely impact the children.
A great many things we do, as adults and parents, are certain to have huge impacts on our kids... often quite negative, life altering impacts... whether the behaviour is criminal or not...
I have lots of personal reasons for believing that some people have no business being parents but those don't realy 'cut the mustard' when it comes to actually taking their kids away...
It might be my 'justice' but that's all it would be... | |
|
| Grow-Op Kids More Healthy Than Average
Posted: 7/31/2011 6:35:16 PM | Again, you're equating a typical home-based grow op with the ones that the police target. It's like comparing someone who makes clothes at home with a Vietnamese sweat shop.
The article talks about kids raised in homes with grow ops. These are much, much smaller operations than the ones you're talking about.
And, for the record, I don't and never have grown a single pot plant in my life. | |
|
| Grow-Op Kids More Healthy Than Average
Posted: 7/31/2011 9:37:03 PM | So if the income is the key to healthy children should not removed from any drug dealing home upon the arrest of the parent. And a arrest suggest the attention of the police which leads me to believe it a much bigger operation than the above poster suggest. I mean cocaine has to be a much more profitable business. Should their children be left in home? We also do not take into account the ruthlessness it take to run that kind of business. INCLUDING killings in order to accomplish their sales goals.
Running an illegal operation around your kids allowing people of questionable character around your children maybe enough of a reason to remove the children. | |
|
| Grow-Op Kids More Healthy Than Average
Posted: 8/2/2011 6:41:59 PM | I understand your position. But you live in Texas, and this study was done in Toronto.
In Canada a typical home grow op is treated about as seriously as building a deck without a permit. In Texas, you risk 20 years in prison for having a grow op; in Canada, you risk losing your equipment. Naturally the people who have grow ops in America are much different that those in Canada. Comparing it to dealing cocaine is just nonsensical from my cultural perspective.
Dealing cocaine is both illegal and immoral. Growing pot is just illegal. | |
|
| Grow-Op Kids More Healthy Than Average
Posted: 8/2/2011 8:26:47 PM |
The article talks about kids raised in homes with grow ops. These are much, much smaller operations than the ones you're talking about.
Actually the article is talking about kids who have been seized from grow op homes that the police have busted. These are not small operations. Kids from the type of mom and pop grow ops you're talking about wouldn't have any chance of being included in this study. Do you think parents just march their kids to the hospital and say "Here's my kid. He lives in a grow op. Wanna study him a bit?" That's why the study is bogus in the first place.
You'll find it interesting to note that BC is like the world capital of pot growing. You guys produce 2 billion worth of drugs every year or fifty per cent of our entire countries pot gdp. Some more statistics for you...The average grow op property in BC is 5 times larger than average. Criminals can buy or rent more privacy with bigger houses on bigger lots. 79% of all grow ops are on residential properties. The average number of plants in a typical grow op has gone from 257 plants to 488 in the decade of the 2000's...not such a small operation as you're suggesting they are. The average number of lights has gone up 178% in that time. The average cost to repair a house is 126k and that house will still only be worth roughly half of what it had been.
So what we're all talking about are grow ops that get busted by police. There are all kinds of small ones, like 20k in BC alone, that the cops will never find or care about. One thing that is common between most grow ops of all sizes is that they need to look like residentially occupied homes. Growers used to get some broke, stoner kid and say, "Hey, how does free rent and all the pot you can smoke sound? And all you have to do is turn off some lights once and a while." Now people have become more attentive to what's going on in their neighborhoods so growers are getting more families with kids to make the houses look extremely normal.
And, for the record, I don't and never have grown a single pot plant in my life
Paranoid much? | |
|
| Grow-Op Kids More Healthy Than Average
Posted: 8/2/2011 8:50:16 PM |
Paranoid much?
I was actually responding specifically to an accusation you made earlier:
There are lots of people like you with a few plants lovingly tended to in the basement that cause no real harm. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
