[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Comparison of 2 cities
Regarding the Gofman position shown below: The Tooth Fairy project has not
done the three things Gofman says are necessary before comparing two
cities.
Pro-Nuclear Argument 2:
People living in high altitude cities, such as Denver,
receive twice as much natural radiation as do those living
at low altitudes . . . yet the residents of such cosmically
bombarded locales don't display double the average incidence
of cancer.
GOFMAN:
The answer to this favorite pronuclear argument is that the
cosmic radiation hitting the people in Denver probably does
cause an increase in the number of cancer cases per capita.
(One should not expect to find twice as many cases of
cancer, of course, because radiation is not the only cause
of the disease.)
But to statistically demonstrate such a reality, we would
first have to know
[1] that the medical reporting of disease categories was
equally accurate in that city and the sea-level community to
which Denver was being compared,
[2] that the people who are considered "at risk" in both
communities had all lived at the same location all their
lives, and
[3] that any other carcinogenic factors--aside from
background radiation--were identical in both areas.
(Undoubtedly they would not be identical.)
The fact is that no expert in the field of vital statistics
would be prepared to contest the point that Denver residents
may be experiencing an increased cancer incidence rate as a
result of cosmic radiation . . . when compared with
otherwise equivalent people at sea level.
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html