[ RadSafe ] Selecting one cancer "risk" near certain nuclear plants

howard long hflong at pacbell.net
Mon Dec 10 11:08:02 CST 2007

SELECTION = SIN (foundation of epidemiology)
Chance alone will give 5 of every 100 studies "statistical significance" (p .05 by chance alone),
close to the 37 cases where just 17 were expected, on the average. 
Would they have reported negative studies? How many were considered?

Experiment is needed. Natural experiment of Taiwan apt 0.4Sv addition from CO 60 in the steel
(hundreds of times any addition to the German dose, certainly less than its radon spa dose)
to 10,000 residents for 9-20 years, resulted in only 3.5 cancers/100,000 person -years
 vs 116 expected, more likely prevention of cancer by chronic radiation.   

Did you hear the story about the statistician who drowned, while wading across a creek 
that averaged just 6" deep?

Howard Long 

----- Original Message ----
From: Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers at hotmail.com>
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 3:03:17 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Child cancer risk higher near nuclear plants: study


Any comments to the following?:

My personal action only,

Bjorn Cedervall  bcradsafers at hotmail.com

Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.Download today it's FREE!
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list