1975
DOI: 10.2172/4153457
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interpretation of near-background environmental surveillance data by distribution analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The presumption of log-normal distribution is never a bad presumption and is never worse than the presumption of arithmetic-normal (Michels 1971). Because the data are represented graphically, the mean, standard deviation, expected upper limits, and any abnormalities can be readily determined visually (Waite 1975). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The presumption of log-normal distribution is never a bad presumption and is never worse than the presumption of arithmetic-normal (Michels 1971). Because the data are represented graphically, the mean, standard deviation, expected upper limits, and any abnormalities can be readily determined visually (Waite 1975). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The presumption of lognormal distribution is never a bad presumption and is never worse than the presumption of arithmetic-normal (Michels 1971). Because the data is represented graphically, the mean, standard deviation, expected upper limits, and any abnormalities can be readily determined visually (Waite 1975). …”
Section: Appendix a -Data Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The presumption of log-normal distribution is never a bad presumption and is never worse than the presumption of arithmetic-normal (Michels 1971). Because the data is represented graphically, the mean, standard deviation, expected upper limits, and any abnormalities can be readily determined visually (Waite 1975). …”
Section: Appendix a -Data Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%