Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Fact Sheet on the Three Mile Island Accident



I note that this is an excerpt from the NRC description of the TMI
event on their web site. I cannot give it too much credence, for the
following reasons:

<snip reasoned arguments for questioning spin>

Steve Wing, in his investigation of the effects of the radiation releases at TMI, found evidence of larger emissions than were ever reported by the official monitors at the time of the accident, whether that increases the average dose received by the population by a significant amount or not, it is clear that it increased the doses received by some by a considerable amount--enough to put those people at significant risk of cancer.


One of the problems I've had with spin, from the opposite point of view, is the tendency of reporters, scientific and otherwise, to emphasize, for example, a "100% increase in the risk," which to most people sounds very significant, when in fact the incidence is not significant at all, to rational observers.

1 in 10,000 vs 2 in 10,000 is a 100% increase in the risk, but most will consider either to be insignificant, relatively speaking.

I'm genuinely curious, not trying to imply that cancer is not a serious concern, but I am trying to get some perspective... what are Steve Wing's quantitative predictions? That is, what is his definition of significant? Or is the use of the word "significant" yours alone here?


Stefan Jeglinski