Jeroen wrote:
> At 18:20 5-7-01 -0500, Adam Lipscomb wrote:
>
> >As Dan pointed out, it's relatively easy to do a bit of web research and
> >find some scientific data on these issues.
>
> There's a slight problem there. All this took place in the eighties and
> nineties (haven't seen anything on TV about this in the last few years,
but
> that might be because I don't watch much TV anymore). Back then, I didn't
> *have* web access. Heck, most people had never even heard of the Internet
> (or ARPANET).
However, you're making the claims *now*, in 2001. You've got web access, so
why not check now?
> > > That's because both sides have a different approach. Assume someone
> >reports
> > > a significant increase in the number of cancer cases near a nuclear
power
> > > plant. The pro-side will say "there is no evidence that it is caused
by
> >the
> > > power plant". The con-side however reasons: "radiation (like from a
> >nuclear
> > > plant) can cause cancer; if there aren't any other likely suspects
that
> > > might have caused this high number of cases, then logically it must
have
> > > been caused by the power plant".
> >
> >But then the pro side rebuts with, "Funny you should say that, since
we've
> >done a statistical study that indicates that there is not, in fact, a
> >statistically significant increase in cancer rates near this plant, and
> >here's the evidnece we gathered." The con-side then repeat, "But we've
got
> >these reported cases!" and they never offer any evidence beyond
anecdotes.
>
> And when the con-site then asks the pro-site "if it wasn't the power
plant,
> then wat *did* cause this outbreak", the answer is either "coincidence" or
> "er... er... er...".
The pro side has offered a reply to that - it's in the data. The "cluster"
of cases you're reporting is not really there. The cancer rates are not
different from the rates elsewhere.
The anti-nuclear side is making extraordinary claims, and is not offering
proof to match the level of the claims. As near as I can tell, the
anti-nuclear side hasn't even invested in any research. Why again should I
trust their scientific integrity, as they're not even indicating they're
using science?
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
