Jeroen wrote:
> >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.
>
> If you re-read the above quotes, you'll notice something strange: a
> mysterious disappearance.
>
> The scenario I depicted was "assume someone reports a significant increase
> in the number of cancer cases near a nuclear power plant". The use of the
> word "reports" indicates use of factual information (like medical records
> from the local hospital). Despite those medical records, the pro-nuclear
> side says "the cluster of cases you're reporting is not really there".
>
> If medical records show a significant increase (say, three times the
> national average), how can those cancer cases suddenly have disappeared
> when a study is done to determine the cause? Magic?
>
> NOTE: this scenario is not linked to any specific nuclear plant; it's a
> scenario, a hypothetical situation where medical records show a large
> increase in cancer cases. The cause is unknown, but some people consider a
> nearby nuclear plant to be a likely suspect.
Then let's drop the hypothetical claims and deal with nuts and bolts. I am,
and have been, speaking to your claims that there have been "reports" of
clusters of cancer near NPP's. When pressed for documentation of these
claims, you've shied away and referred to hypothetical situations and used
words like "assume". If you've got *any* documentation of specific claims
of high cancer rates, post them. Otherwise, I can only conclude that, for
your and my portion of this discussion, we have reached the "We'll have to
agree to disagree" stage of the game.
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
