howard long <hlong@pacbell.net> wrote:
JJ,Please correct the p on Cameron's analysis at the below reference (which you must not have read) to 0.0001 that life expectancy was much better for workers exposed than for those not exposed.. . .
Howard,
I do not know what you mean that I should "correct" the p value. Do you mean I should consider the p-value? Actually, Dr. Cameron claims that the p-value is p<10^ -16 . This sounds like an exordinary value. I would use the word "unrealistic," but I do not know if that was a typographical error or not. I based this comment on never having seen such a claim in any publication. Have you ever heard of such a p-value? (I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.)
What you, and John Cameron, leave out is that there is no statistical difference between those exposed at > 5 mSv (500 mrem) and those exposed to > 5 mSv. My understanding is that in evaluating risk in the workplace, it is necessary to consider those who are exposed to the toxin at various levels, rather than making a comparison with those never exposed. (Again, this for an analysis of workplace exposures only, which this study considers, not for a comparison with the general population.) As I read the review by the author, who is not John Cameron, which appeared in Radiation Research, 133, 126-127 (1993), further investigation needed to be focused on the variations in jobs and other shipyard (non-radiation) exposure or non-job-related risk factors . . ."
It is interesting that all groups who worked in the shipyard, exposed and non-exposed to radiation, had lower risks than the general population. Maybe that should tell you something about the subject population also.