At 07:38 PM 10/29/05 EDT, you wrote:
>>>> I have to wonder at what a "statistically significant"  increase in
>>>> stinging deaths would be?
>
>It rather depends upon whether you are one of the statistics.

Heh.. rather! As the author of the above question, I am compelled to offer
a bit of an explanation, somewhat after the fact, as to why I asked it:
Basically, I just don't trust statisticians any farther than I can throw
them, it's that simple and I thank my father for this attitude. He used to
say "figures don't lie, but liars figure" and he had pretty much the same
attitude toward economists. I've expanded my skepticism to include
politicians, lawyers, and insurance agents, to mention a few. You can tell
when they're lying, their lips are moving!

That said, I'm a firm believer in the scientific method, real data
analysis, and rational conclusions based on pertinent facts. I just happen
to believe that most people have an agenda if not a vested interest and one
has to be very careful in accepting their conclusions on a matter simply
because they have a title after their name. I have little tolerance for
statistical analysis outside the realm of pure science. This is as much a
political, social, and/or business related issue (pick one!) as it is a
scientific one. The answer to the question "is there a statistically
significant increase in stinging deaths?" would depend entirely upon who
was asking it, and who was answering it, and in comparison to what: death
by lightning? alligators? death by car? I'm sure there is sufficient data
to argue the case either way. For me, there is no question about it. The
answer is yes.

There have been some good answers to the original question, in particular
Allen Dick put a lot of thought into his response, but Chris's simple
perspective, to which I'm replying now, most closely parallels my own
feelings on the matter: It does rather depend on whether you're one of the
statistics :)  I don't think there'd be much consolation for the relatives
of someone who died from an AHB stinging incident in being told that the
death of their loved one was regretable, but "not statistically
significant". Similarly, being reminded that "flying is the safest way to
travel" is not all that comforting if you are sitting in a plane about to
crash. It may be true. It's not relevant.

So, I feel the question is really moot and we should move on to the other
issues of having AHB in our midst. It really doesn't matter to me if there
is a statistically significant increase in stinging deaths. I believe there
WILL be (already is) an increase of AHB in our feral bee population, those
bees WILL be more aggressive, the incidence of stinging incidents WILL
increase (already has), and some number of those incidents WILL result in
death (already have) whether they are deemed statistically significant or
not. This is just common sense, a prediction based upon an understanding of
the traits of AHB and the ramifications of having a feral population of
them in our country.

Sometimes you just gotta go with what you believe :)

George-

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---