Uncertainty exaggerated

This example does not exaggerate the importance of knowing the uncertainty on a Th/U date. Indeed, for most studies, the uncertainty of a date is no less significant than the date itself. The exceptions are those cases where, once the age-uncertainty is below a certain limit, its precise value is not particularly important since the problem which the date addresses is itself imperfectly constrained. 

Irrespective of the risk, assumptions and decisions will have to be made because of uncertainty. Implications of attempting to characterize all variability and uncertainty in the risk assessment need to be considered. For example, exaggerating uncertainties can obscure the scientific basis of risk management decisions, leaving the impression that the decision has been arbitrary in nature (NRC 1989). The purpose of the uncertainty factor together with the type of assessment (e.g., deterministic or probabilistic, protective or best estimate) must be clearly communicated. Uncertainty factors can be described in 3 categories ... 

The human information is based largely on case reports not epidemiology studies. Chemicals other than organotins were always involved. Exposure levels and durations were not well documented in the human reports and exaggerated doses were used on the animal studies. Despite the uncertainties, neurobehavioral changes must be looked for in persons involved with accidental spills of tin compounds, in industrial settings, or at hazardous waste sites. 

The levels selected in a robustness test are different from those at which factors are evaluated in method optimization. For optimization purposes the variables are examined in a broad interval. In robustness testing the levels are much less distant. They represent the (somewhat exaggerated) variations in the values of the variables that could occur when a method is transferred. For instance, in optimization the levels for pH would be several units apart, while in robustness testing the difference could be 0.2 pH units. The levels can for instance be defined based on the uncertainty with which a factor level can be set and re.set 36 and usually they are situated around the method (nominal) conditions if the method specifies pH 4.0, the levels would be 3.9 and 4.1. The experimental designs used are in both situations the same and comprise fractional factorial and Plackett-Burman designs. 

WOE), which estimates the joint actions (additivity, antagonism and exaggeration) for binary mixtures of chemicals based on the information on individual components. Several factors such as mechanistic interaction, uncertainty factors, route of exposure etc. are taken into account. The better the data set on the individual chemicals is, the more precise the joint action can be predicted. The draw back is the high- to low-dose extrapolation as most of the individual toxicity information is developed at high doses. According to WOE evaluations, considering common mechanisms for simple chemical mixtures can lead to better estimates of the observed toxic responses than the default assumption of dose additivity. 

Clients can be exposed to uncertainty and are expected to address many problems that include health and wellness issues, finances, recent and multiple medical problems, or the death of loved ones. Defined simply, fear is the body s response to a real threat, and anxiety is an exaggerated response to something that is unrealistic or unknown. 

Cie , Cie and Cie . The difference between Cj and the reference case is the gas boundary condition the gas pressure is maintained at the atmospheric level at the contact EB-canister for each calculation time. Ci differs from the reference case, because the relative conductivity law is replaced by the constant value of 10 . This value is not realistic, but two reasons have motivated this choice. First, several orders of magnitude uncertainties concern both intrinsic and gas relative conductivity. We have chosen not to discuss intrinsic conductivity concept pertinence, so we have preferred to report the global uncertainties on a single parameter the relative conductivity. Second, if the heat-pipe effect, observed by Pollock (1986), can be activated, the darcean water flux would not govern the saturation kinetics anymore. Taking an exaggerated value is a security to validate our results. In, both... 

This is an exaggeration. Classical mechanics also has its own problems with uncertainty. For example, obtaining the same results for a game of dice would require a perfect reproduction of the initial conditions, which is never feasible. 

---