PS. As the previous address of an e-mail has been removed also all letters on it have been lost I is compelled to make this dispatch once again.
PS2. To send url your site on an e-mail stop.web.spam@gmail.com is a unique way to avoid a spam from me. To write abuses to the various “stop spam” sites – it is useless.
PS3. Your addresses of an e-mail are not necessary to me, you can create an e-mail through free service and send me yours url through this e-mail
PS4. sorry for my bad English

I wish I could find the powerpoint by the UCLA R.E. prof. it documents this quite well, along with the boom extending from good ‘hoods’ to marginal ones (with the marginal ones increasing by the most %) and the reverse occurring during the bust.

PS. Widen the confidence interval wide enough, and your “finding” is useless.

Backed up inventory, or hidden inventory, is a phenomenon that you see in housing recessions–once you have completed at least one full selling season (Spring to Spring) and there’s been no price recovery. What happens is that each subsequent Spring, all these homeowners who pulled their listing last year in frustration at not “getting their asking price”, put their home back on the market again. This hidden supply then merges with new supply, like the Santa Monica Freeway meeting the 405 at rush hour.

The Bay Area now has at least one selling cycle’s worth of backed-up inventory. Other cities like Boston have two years worth. And a city like San Diego is working on its third.

I remember living in Los Angeles in the 1989-1993 period. Every late Winter there would be a small stabilization of prices, and then this massive amount of supply would pour onto the market. Realtors also refer to this middle stage of a housing recession as an Iceberg market, where the current “supply” you see on offer is only the tip of the iceberg of what would be for sale.

If you look at the recent DQ numbers, you basically see an almost sieze-up in transactions. That’s the classic over-Wintering set up to a huge amount of supply that will pour onto the market soon.

Unless of course I am wrong. (ho ho). I can only call it, like I see it.

The 2004 and 2006 Iraqi mortality studies published in the Lancet, while certainly inconvenient to the Bush Administration, a number of American and British politicians, and various radio talk show hosts, have been almost uniformly endorsed by epidemiologists and statisticians around the world. In fact, Les Roberts, one of the studies’ authors, was the keynote speaker at the American Statistical Association’s Joint Statistical Meeting last year. Subsequent re-analyses of the data that Roberts and colleagues collected have shown wider confidence intervals, but similar magnitudes. It’s certainly difficult to face the magnitude of the disaster in Iraq, but these were solid, rigorous studies.

Yes, good epidemiology requires “extra work.” Gauderman and colleagues did eight years of “extra work.” Besides, the negative pulmonary effect of freeway proximity isn’t based on this single study, but a large body of extant evidence collected over the last two decades all over the world.

Decreased lung function directly contributes to the development of asthma in children. But I mentioned asthma and lung cancer and cardiovascular disease because you had made the somewhat fantastical assertion that the lungs are “overengineered,” and that human beings can afford a little decreased lung function.

Do you really want to bet that the co-morbidity of cardiovascular disease and decreased lung function is a “coincidence”? I’d take that bet in a second, as would any cardiologist who’s been trained in the last 30 years. That’s why it’s called a “major risk factor.”

What you’re saying about lung capacity is just physiologically counterfactual. Try breathing very shallowly and see how quickly you get dizzy.

And an 11% drop-out rate is a little high, but not unusual for an urban cohort. There are ways to construct a regression model that will largely compensate.

Sorry for high-jacking your blog, Tracey.

We are looking at Montclair in the OAK hills.

Something that is coming dead ahead however, is all the backed up inventory from the last 1-2 years. This will show up on the market over the next 6 weeks. We have targeted 2009 for our purchase, as I think you will finally get a meaningful price correction that’s very broad based in the Bay Area this year.

Here is a sign of how much the market has shifted already, from the Q4 price peak of 2006–a quality 3/2 on the Berkeley flats for 550K.

http://www.millsteinassociates.com/1005Hearst/1005Hearst.htm

I did scan the study and noted that 34% of kids moved and 11% dropped out each year. Not too helpful, that.

Anyway, I wasn’t saying it was a bad study; I hadn’t read it in its entirety. I was pointing out the usual factors in the multiple bad ways to do epidemiology. Your profession, as I’m sure you know, works in a field where it is EXTREMELY difficult to run real experiments (where you use a control, have a disprovable hypothesis, etc). Therefore, in order to have a truly rigorous study, you have to do “extra work” to make sure your findings are supported by the evidence.

This isn’t asthma. As you point out, this is lung function. This also isn’t lung cancer, which certainly does hit non-smokers, but in non-smokers, there is much evidence that it’s a different disease with a better prognosis. Cancer is a disease of old age, not many are caused by the environment.

5,000 deaths per year from asthma are certainly a tragedy. About 600,000 people die each year from heart disease and a similar number from cancer.

As for relating to heart disease, is it causation or simply coincidence? My bet is the latter.

The limits to exercise are not lung capacity, it is heart/blood delivery to muscle.