CORRECTION: Re: Landmark Defense Verdict in Favor of SCE in Wrongful De

[BLHamrick@aol.com]

In a message dated 08/08/2000 9:59:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, BLHamrick 
writes:

<< It seems to me that either the judges, or the Cal Ed lawyers, or a 
combination of both, got something grossly wrong, because, in fact, the 
"natural" incidence of CML at age 40 is one in one hundred thousand, so one 
would expect to actually see 2,500 people at age 40 with CML in a population 
of 100,000 40 years olds, irrespective of their radiation exposure.  Or, am I 
grossly mis-interpreting what's being said? >>

I had a brain burp...what I MEANT to say was:

It seems to me that either the judges, or the Cal Ed lawyers, or a 
combination of both, got something grossly wrong, because, in fact, the 
"natural" incidence of CML at age 40 is one in one hundred thousand, so one 
would expect to actually see 2,500 PEOPLE (or more, because incidence 
increases dramatically with age) WITH CML IN A TOTAL U.S. POPULATION OF 
250,000,000, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR RADIATION EXPOSURE.  Or, am I grossly 
mis-interpreting what's being said?

That's what I meant to say.

Barbara L. Hamrick
BLHamrick@aol.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html