Yeah, and note the dates covered by the study. Only one or two years
(not sure if it's the year 1964 to 1965 or the two tears 1964 and 1965)
extrapolated and generalized to a conclusion. Not only not peer reviewed
but not statistically significant, except possibly for the specific time
mentioned. Why just those months in an article published today, more
than 40 years later.The authors should have been able to gather numbers
from other years to strengthen their conclusions. I have no ax to grind,
just curious whenever I hear these kinds of statements as to where they
come from.


Tina wrote:
Not peer reviewed, but here's something. Note the date.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...836176,00.html


On May 13, 12:28 am, romeomike wrote:
Tina wrote:

Your (attempted) superior attidude reminds me of

some studies that were done on MD pilots a long time ago, and maybe
JFK Jrs at that time: their attitude of whatever - being superior? --
led to an increased accident rate.
Have a reference for those studies?