In a message dated 7/3/01 7:15:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
You'll have to come up with some very convincing evidence, though. Let's
say a report claims that in a town with a nuclear power plant nearby, the
cancer rate is three times as high as the national average, and the power
plant is blamed for it. You'll have a hard time convincing me that the
higher rate is just a coincidence, and not related to the presence of that
nuclear power plant. >>
The rates will not be nearly that high. If they are, then something else is
going on. The rates are more likely to be less than 1% greater than the
national average (cancer is usually reported I think in number of cases per
100,00 lives). Given what I know about cancer, I would make the opposite
arguement. It is those who are attempting to blame cancer on the power plants
who are obliged (from a scientific point of view) to come up with the strong
arguements. The cancers that are blamed on nuclear plants (and many other
environmental hazzards) occur in the general population without any exposure.
Only using sound statistical methods can the cancers be linked to power
plants (in the way that smoking was linked to lung cancer). Smoking is a good
example of how science works and why the notion that large companies or
industries can suppress scientific knowledge is wrong. No industry tried
harder to suppress knowledge of the harm of its products than the tobacco
industry. And yet they did not succeed. The harmful effects of smoking have
evaluated and identified for about 50 years, despite enormous political and
economic pressure from the extremely wealthy tobacco industry.
On the other hand, those who wish to blame cancer on a specific environmental
hazzard seem to be under no compunction to accept sound science. Data that
shows that the proposed risk is non-existent is typically ignored or the
scientists who produce the work are accused of dishonest unethical behavior.
Take as an example the high tension line causes cancer story. Most of this
stuff was anectodal to begin with. One study, that came out of Duke did
suggest an increased incidence but this was shown to be statistically flawed.
And yet this piece of nonsense refused to die.
>From the outet there could have been no physical means for high tension lines
to have caused the disesase that were being reported.
