Dan Minette schreef:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 4:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Earth on Edge
>
> If one accepts the slightly higher rate of increase in leukaemia as caused
> by the radiation, then one should also accept the slightly lower rate of
> other cancers as a beneficial effect of radiation. But, since both numbers
> are within a standard deviation of the expected values, statistical
> fluctuations are the best explaination.
>
> Does this suffice as scientific analysis that refutes the concept that the
> radiation caused the cancer in those children?
Just a thougt that occured to me when I read this. Statistics is used a lot to
validate or to disprove risks and chances but.....
That's the biggest trouble with statistics. If chances for some kind of damage
are just low enough it all sounds just fine untill it hits you personally. Like
a 1 in 2000 chance for spina bifida doesn't sound like too much. But so does a 1
in a 100million chance to win the lottery. Then again neither the one nor the
other has kept people from taking those chances for better or for worse. :o/
Sonja
