With respect your objection is meaningless in terms of statistics. The size of a sample depends on the size of a population. The closer to the size of the population the sample the more powerful any statistical analysis is. Thus an analysis run on the entire population of results is the most powerful analysis you can do. Thus the one in two hundred change is valid and is statistically significant.
Because there are no other numbers to measure. There is also no need for more numbers. Cos that's not how statistics work. The rule isn't that an ever increasing absolute number makes a result more valid, or significant, but that a sample size close to the population, or one that increases relative to the size of the population becomes more valid.
Statistical significance may not imply substantive significance, you can take issue with the reasoning behind the process but you can't criticise the results by saying there aren't enough numbers without reinvening the field and theory of statistics. (but I you do want to that feel free to get rid of anything to do with logarithims! Cheers
)
