Ted,
This has been a problem for years. Just because a hand calculator can give you 10 digits, many people (including those who draft regulations) believe the number is real. There is no uncertainty. The mean in every statistical study does not require the calculation of a standard deviation.
Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM> wrote:
This is so totally amazing. Here we have a theory/hypothesis that the
best science we have can't even prove the sign or shape of the response
function and for which the strongest proponents argue that it MAY not
actually be true - but it is the prudent thing to do "just to be on the
safe side" and here the NRC is trying to give it 3 significant digits!!
The sheer inumeracy behind such an effort would be laughable if the
matter didn't involve so serious a consequence!
How can we ever argue that something isn't so or isn't proven when the
"officials" preach it to 3 significant figures?
Why don't they just go for .0006 and be that much more safe (unless
hormesis is true). At least it wouldn't look as inane!