Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Aug. 01, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

LETTERS: The math behind DNA matching

To the editor:

Your Tuesday editorial on DNA testing was sadly misinformed.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program
  • FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership
  • LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure
  • LETTERS: Trickle-down economics is dead
  • EDITORIAL: Tip jar
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?
  • EDITORIAL: A tiny bit of good news?
  • LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste
  • EDITORIAL: Sending the right message
  • EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'



    • Among its many mistakes: The searches in the Arizona database that showed matches at nine or more loci do not provide "realistic odds" of a coincidental match for a typical DNA identification. A match at nine loci out the 13 searched means that there are four loci that are different. This excludes someone as a suspect. Police need a perfect match at all the loci that are typed to produce incriminatory evidence.

    But let's pretend that there is a case with only nine loci that are typeable and that all nine match. If I buy a lottery ticket identified by nine digits generated at random, the chance that it will match another such ticket is only one in a billion. This is the realistic probability of a coincidental match between the two tickets.

    On the other hand, if I look though 10,000 of these tickets to see how many match, I have an immensely better chance of finding matches. The probability has increased to about one in 20 (the 50 million comparisons I am making times the one in a billion chance that each pair of tickets match).

    The Arizona database search compared all DNA profiles on record to each other -- just like the trawl through all the tickets. It would be surprising if some low-probability matches did not materialize in the process. Such phenomena might -- or might not -- explain the seemingly high number of matches at nine or more loci. Geneticists are studying the issue. But one thing is certain: It is a very safe bet that no unrelated person in Las Vegas (or even your fraternal twin) has the same DNA you do at exactly nine out of nine identifying loci.

    David H. Kaye

    TEMPE, ARIZ.

    THE WRITER IS A PROFESSOR OF LIFE SCIENCES AT ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY.

    Reverse mortgages

    To the editor:

    Hubble Smith's Sunday article, "Reverse mortgage leaves borrower stunned and stuck," was misleading because he relied on sources who don't understand how reverse mortgages work.

    William Lancaster, the borrower, received a federally insured reverse mortgage, which enabled him to pay off an existing mortgage of $54,000 and to establish a $60,000 line of credit, which he has used to fund retirement needs.

    The property does not, as the article misstates, "essentially belong to the lender." The lender has a lien, as in any other loan. This is no different in a reverse mortgage than in a traditional mortgage. Mr. Lancaster now owes the sum of those funds ($114,000), plus accrued interest and mortgage insurance totaling $170,000 -- but his home is worth only $130,000.

    Under the federal program, if Mr. Lancaster sells the home to pay back the $170,000, he will only be responsible for paying up to the sales price, whether it's $130,000 or $120,000. The lender would recoup its loss from the Federal Housing Administration.

    That's a benefit of the $2,600 in mortgage insurance premium that he paid to FHA. The Realtor quoted in the story states that Mr. Lancaster paid interest of $50,000 to $60,000 in just two years, which he labels "insane," yet the lender who made the loan said he's paying 5.5 percent, which amounts to $7,000 a year. Obviously, the Realtor has no idea what he's talking about, because he's not in the business of making reverse mortgages.

    It would be helpful if the reporter would follow up with knowledgeable individuals who could help analyze the case study presented so the correct facts could be reported.

    Darryl Hicks

    WASHINGTON, D.C.

    THE WRITER IS VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL REVERSE MORTGAGE LENDERS ASSOCIATION.

    A new weight fee?

    To the editor:

    The airline industry has rightfully increased the fees for checked baggage as well as excess baggage. This is all predicated upon an increase in fuel cost.

    What about humans who are overweight? Ought they to be charged with an "excess body weight fee" when their weight exceeds a pre-determined maximum limit based on height?

    On my flight to Chicago last week, I sat next to a morbidly obese person who must have weighed 400 pounds.

    He asked me to raise the armrest between his seat and mine so he could share some of his adipose tissue with me. I turned him down politely. Had I given in to his request, I would have turned into a pancake.

    By implementing an "excess body weight fee," an auspicious side effect would be a reduction in health care expenditures because people would be more vigilant to reduce their body weight.

    Osnof Iut

    LAS VEGAS

    Enough said

    To the editor:

    To all of the people who are complaining about term limits and claiming that it should be the voters who determine who should no longer by in office: It was the voters who voted for term limits! It passed. End of story.

    W.J. Park

    LAS VEGAS



    Leave Your Comment 18 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    sid wrote on August 01, 2008 05:30 PM: perfactly legal is a great book....

    Mark you are right, I used their site to "support" br and the Limpaw group.
    The super rich have very little earned income.


    sid wrote on August 01, 2008 05:29 PM: br,

    Again you miss the point. I'm not surprised. Subsidized energy wasn't mentioned...so much for your GRE scores!

    However, I will assume that you will now stop buying gasoline and anything made with plastic. As you know, the US spends over $200,000,000 a year protecting petro shipping routes, production and refining capacity. You are equally aware that oil companies are also heavily subsidized by tax breaks. The whole of the US foreign/military policy is about OIL; from Africa to all the "cans" south of Russia including Georgia to the Capsian Sea!

    So, I guess the rest of us can divy up you petro share since you don't want others subsidizing you?

    go crack a book!


    erik wrote on August 01, 2008 04:19 PM: Mr Green,

    Did you know that the top 10 percent of wage earners includes any two income family earning over 108 thousand a year? These people are the nurses, police, construction workers, etc...that get up every day and go to work for a living, not the athletes or "people living off inhereted money". The fact that you do not understand this fact makes your argument laughable at best.

    Erik


    Mark Schaffer wrote on August 01, 2008 04:02 PM: The National Taxpayers Union is a partisan organization with an obvious agenda. The chart linked to by sid misrepresents the facts by leaving out important information such as the portion of income that is not even taxed that the wealthy get. For those unimpressed by the propaganda of right wingers I suggest the book "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else".

    Who do you think is hiring all the lobbyists on Capital Hill to make sure the tax code benefits flow to wealthy people? How do you think Roberto Guizueta made almost a billion dollars worth of personal fortune without paying a dime in taxes? Luck?


    br wrote on August 01, 2008 03:39 PM: I get it Sid, you think you have a right to subsidized cheap energy, let someone else pay for it right… If you don’t like the price you have the power to not use it, or use less of it, your wallet is a powerful tool give it a try. Any regulation will not help you, the republowcats do not care about anyone but themselves, scream and vote for regulation and the cost won’t go down but the politicians will get more of a cut from the corporations, they will make you pay for it and then ask for reelection because they “helped” you the small guy.


    sid wrote on August 01, 2008 02:18 PM: snackler;

    Exactly! The prices I quoted are from the governmennts EIA for residential price.

    br,
    Once again, you miss the point.


    bhobama wrote on August 01, 2008 12:46 PM: Br, Sid, Michael, Snackler

    I plan on bringing hope and change to these forums. Br I promise I won’t raise taxes on any working American, I will lower government spending, protect the first amendment, drill for more oil and protect your right to own a gun. Michael, I will tax only the richest ¾’s of Americans, pay for your medical care, because we need to think globally, I will protect the environment, I will protect you from white religious people that own guns, and create great unions to foster free trade.
    Sid, I will subsidize malt liquor to help quench your thirst and pipe that natural gas into every minority neighborhood to provide cheap clean energy to the people that need it the most, Rush Limbaugh can build it with his riches and the time he has after we revive the fairness doctrine. To save money on travel expenses I won’t bring the troops home I will use them to invade Pakistan.

    If you do not vote for me solely based on my skin color you are a racist
    BHO


    br wrote on August 01, 2008 12:02 PM: sid

    if you think it costs to much don't buy it


    snackler wrote on August 01, 2008 12:01 PM: Natural gas is a commodity traded on exchanges and subject to manipulation and speculation, just like oil. There is no shortage of natural gas, we have plenty of our own. Problem is, you have analysts and traders who believe that natural gas should go up because oil went up. Not because of the so called "fundamentals" of supply and demand. A good example is gold. Gold bugs claim that the real price of gold should be 2 to 3 thousand dollars instead of 900 because the Dow is up so many percent since 1980 so the price of gold should be up the same amount. How does this relate to supply and demand? Bottom line is this. All commodities whether they be gas, oil, coal, wheat, corn, etc are traded on exchanges. The prices of these commodities is based on the supply and demand for the contracts, not the commodity. You have hundreds of thousands of people around the world sitting at computers trading commodites contracts, currency, anything tradeable on paper. The road from your wallet leads straight to Wall Street. Current natural gas price as of this writing, $9.35.


    sid wrote on August 01, 2008 10:58 AM: No takers on the rise in natural gas prices, huh?

    Okay...here is National Taxpayer's Union tax percentile breakout;

    nationaltaxpayer

    I'd love to hear an explanation on huge increase in natural gas prices though


    Read All Comments