RE: A question of statistical significance vs operational significance

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

> So when people ask to explain his

findings, it is like asking someone to explain

randomness.



All very interesting, on an abstract, generic basis.  But we still have the

fact that, as stated in NCRP-136 (the 6-year effort to support the LNT): "It

is important to note that the rates of cancer in most populations exposed to

low-level radiation have not been found to be detectably increased, and that

in most cases the rates have appeared to be decreased."  This is also true

of Steve Wing's data and Stewart's, and the a-bomb survivors are outliving

the unirradiated controls.  And people who live in high natural backgrounds

have lower cancer than others.  Ditto for the shipyard workers and British

radiologists.  Isn't great how the confounders keep us well!



And of course, biological theory and lab data with organisms at all levels

from one celled to human, all show the same thing.  And every other

challenge to the body--toxic chemicals, microbes, exercise, sunshine, heat

challenge--all work this way.



So LNT, which doesn't even have a good theory behind it, must somehow be

forced to transcend both theory and data.



It's like Nixon used to say, "Sometimes you have to rise above principle."



Ted Rockwell





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/