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] |
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 aThat word is mine. I haven't talked with Steve about that particular issue (In fact I haven't talked to him at all for a couple of years). The point is that he has evidence that the emissions were considerably more than what has been made public, either because the NRC is sitting on the data or because those who were making the measurements didn't do it right, or the pre-placed radiation detectors they relied upon were not in the right places, or some combination of the above. As you note, the actual probability of the cancers was increased by a rather small number (more stuff that I can't get to because it's been packed away until after I move), but when applied to the population at risk around the TMI site, it adds up to a number that gives one pause. We're not talking about an extra thousand people dying, but probably more like around 50, over a span of 30-40 years. It's not a huge number, but it's people who didn't know they were buying into that risk, and probably wouldn't have had they had the option.
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?