by another participant on an earlier article from the same blog:
> > It appears you've made some sort of resolution to publish and promote a blog entry per day in 2013. 40 entries in 41 days this year vs. 46 in all of 2012. You should reconsider - whatever your reasons were, I doubt they included a desire to develop a reputation for presenting topics that were sensationalized and thinly researched  produced with a pace that ensures discredited theories dont get reviewed.
> Wow, nice spot and they have all been submitted to HN. I have never seen anyone's submission history be so hell bent on self promotion:
That was followed up by another set of comments:
> I'm beginning to flag these posts.
Shame, it's an interesting idea. Could we be mistaken and the Japanese don't live longer. I believe similar mistakes are happening in blue zone theory.
But I'm a firm believer that some people can just can make a good argument about anything.
So if they have been very wrong in the past, or very wrong in part of their argument then I take it as now they are wrong and just making a good argument that's fooling my flawed brain.
And I still think the most important part of that article was that placebo ingredients were not included in studies, making them hard to understand/reproduce. Wasn't that completely accurate? Set aside any implications that may or may not have been there.
I'll give that it's probably poorly researched, but what you're linking is only half-relevant to that.
And it's worth noting that while other developed nations are close to Japan in terms of life expectancy, they're WAY behind in terms of number of centenarians. Switzerland for example has an average life expectancy of 81.8 years, vs. Japan's 82.7. But Japan supposedly has 3.5x as many centenarians per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian#Centenarian_populat...).
Could you elaborate? Isn't the median always _less_ sensitive to outliers compared to the mean?
Take the dataset [7, 8, 9], with a median and mean of 8. Adding a 100 to the set results in a median of 8.5 and a mean of 31, so the mean moves much farther. This is probably the effect you're thinking of: the mean can take extreme values into account "too much".
But I can also make the median move more. Take the dataset [0, 50, 100]. The median and mean are both 50. If I add [100, 100] to it so it becomes [0, 50, 100, 100, 100], the mean moves to only 70, but the median moves all the way up to 100! There was a "gap" in the numerical sequence that the median could jump over, but the mean couldn't.
Here's a different way of moving the median further. Take the dataset [1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5]. Bathtub-shaped data. As I add fives to the set, the mean goes 3, 3.17, 3.3. But the median goes 3, 3.5, 4! Medians move past thin spots in distributions very quickly.
Mean is sensitive to distant outliers; median is sensitive to unevenly distributed data and numerical gaps.
To come back on topic, while I don't have a reference for the age-at-death distribution, I think it's bathtub-shaped. Hence, the median might be more sensitive to extra values at the top than the mean would be.
Expected value is a mean.
In the case of life expectancy at age X, it is the mean, conditional on having already survived to age X. (In other words, life expectancy at age 20 excludes everyone who died between birth and age 20.)
5 million 'years' * $20k/year = $100 billion
Also, from my experience smoking seems to be rare both in Tokyo and the countryside, so I'd like the see some statistics about Japanese being "smoking fiends" before I assertTrue().
Males: 37%, females: 9%.
Compare with 22/17, M/F in the USA.
 Beaten to the punch, apologies for the double post.
25% of the population smokes, and their rate among adults is roughly 55% higher than in the US.
I did see smokers often in the smoking areas. More than I see in NYC.
What about all those Japanese schoolgirls that run to school with a piece of toast hanging out of their mouths because they overslept?
"An official at the Health Ministry's statistics bureau said Friday's survey does not change Japan's status as a fast-aging nation because life expectancy calculations are not based on family registration records."
If there's one thing people know about the Japanese, it is how much they like to save face.
Viewing the page source shows the following as the background image:
Interestingly, the same page, viewed in xombrero, shows nothing amiss.
Yet in Chromium, the following is what I see when I load the background image as linked to in the page source:
I'm not the only one who sees it.
Because I see no such background. I feel like maybe you are being MITMed.
The fact that an acquaintance in England (I'm in Hawaii) also saw the x-rated background leads me to believe that something else is going on with this page.
Argument: The average age of a population is 10.
Counter-argument: At least on one of the numbers is greater than it should be.
Conclusion: The average age of a population is 8.
>the fact that there are 234,000 unrecorded deaths in the Japanese population means the often-touted life-expectancy figure of 82 years for Japan now has to be considered suspect
Not sure how you can argue against that reasoning unless you can show Japan's life expectancy calculations have nothing to do with official estimates of how many people are currently older than 100 (which is possible).
Your example doesn't follow the spirit of their argument at all. They aren't proposing their own average, and their evidence involves far more than one data point.
Conclusion: The average age of a population is less than 10.
Which would be true if the counter-argument was found to be correct, would it not?
hidden joke. I'm glad I caught it.
That study is mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercentenarian
also, see the verified records
A extended list:
10% sounds like a lot to me, but that 2011 earthquake/tsunami will have caused a peak in death rate. Likely, there also was a stress related peak outside the directly affected areas. That peak would be followed by a through, just like one sees elsewhere after a hot summer or harsh winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_displacement)
Ten percent fewer deaths would be, I guess, about 60,000 'excess' deaths in the year of the tsunami and 60,000 fewer in the next year. Does anybody know whether that would be feasible?
Such deaths both increase mortality in 2011 and decrease it in some time later.
Another factor is their mindset, too. While most of Japanese are not religious, they do follow certain cultural customs from Buddism and Shintoism, etc.
... which is one of the big reasons I'd expect them to get rid of the bodies instead of keeping them around.
And there have even been funded studies and papers published in medical journals about this!:
I'd be surprised, because western media is exactly from where I found out about this two years ago or so:
(...and a few others.)
There are so many cases in Japan that people die alone, and people not noticing it until their neighbors reports unusual odors, which may or may not happen. (although census should supposed to be catching that...)
Move on, nothing to see here.
20/~100 of the verified oldest people were japanese according to
That's a handsome statistic right there.
We get a very different understanding of the value of, say, the Japanese diet if Japanese life expectancy at age 2 is 84 versus if it's substantially lower.
Hearing something and saying it is hearsay.
The top cause of death in Japan is Amyloidosis:
Amyloidosis, in case you're wondering, is a protein disorder most commonly found in super-centarians (people 110 years old or older):
So not only are the welfare fraudsters great at hacking the social support system without getting caught, they're also really knowledgeable about arcane disease patterns in super-centarians, just to give their lie that extra ring of truth once they decide to finally leave the dole. And... somehow... they're conning medical professionals into reporting this as a cause of death for mummified elders.
While a large number on the face of it, I'm not even convinced 230,000 missing elderly is statistically significant given the size of the population. 
I usually give articles a stronger benefit of the doubt, but this is from the site that's arguing that lung cancer isn't really related to smoking, and questionable claims about the causes of autism.
Now I'm wondering, is the blog's title an easter egg? Is the whole point to just take some crazy proposition and see how many people will buy it? Is this entire blog just trolling the internet?
 EDIT: Someone ran the numbers, thanks icegreentea http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5326622
 Hacker News discussions raised interesting counterpoints, questioning large gaps reasoning in previous pieces:
Perhaps the best comment:
"It appears you've made some sort of resolution to publish and promote a blog entry per day in 2013. 40 entries in 41 days this year vs. 46 in all of 2012. You should reconsider - whatever your reasons were, I doubt they included a desire to develop a reputation for presenting topics that were sensationalized and thinly researched produced with a pace that ensures discredited theories dont get reviewed."
Jk, good catch, monochromatic.
I'd like to say I wouldn't be making such sloppy errors if assertTrue() hasn't been engaged in this series of nutty claims recently, but that's probably giving myself too much credit.
Thanks for keeping me honest.