{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028128031037827354, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.615384615384615, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rethinking Poisson‐Based Statistics for Ground Water Quality Monitoring

Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) provide guidance for selecting statistical procedures for ground water detection monitoring at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) solid and hazardous waste facilities. The procedures recommended for dealing with large numbers of nondetects, as may often be found in data for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), include, but are not limited to, Poisson prediction limits (in both the EPA guidance and ASTM standard) and Poisson tolerance limits (EPA guidance only). However, many of the proposed applications of the Poisson model are inappropriate. The development and application of the Poisson‐based methods are explored for two types of data, counts of analytical hits and actual concentration measurements. Each of these two applications is explored along two lines of reasoning, a first‐principles argument and a simple empirical fit.