[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ecological fallacy and the LNT

To: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: ecological fallacy and the LNT
From: AndrewsJP@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:47:50 EST
Reply-To: AndrewsJP@AOL.COM
Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

In a message dated 2/12/2002 11:02:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, RuthWeiner@AOL.COM writes:

But to say that therefore the average expected cancer incidence would be 0.000005 (0.0005*0.1) is the fallacy in question. Essentially, "average individual cancer expectation" or whatever is meaningless. Have I got it right?

I am trying hard to follow this disjointed discussion and I am having trouble. Ruth, please expand on this fallacy concept in your question for some of us dumber ones.

John Andrews
Knoxville, Tennessee

Prev by Date: Re: Radon and Smoking
Next by Date: Re: Radon and Smoking
Prev by thread: Re: ecological fallacy and the LNT
Next by thread: Ecological fallacy and the LNT
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread