Talk:Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cancer cluster?

How do I add one of those banners saying that the neutrality of this article is in question? This is horribly misleading by calling a "cancer cluster" when there is no evidence. The German study showed it only at one area which also happened to be a former chemical processing area and the 'cluster' was not statistically signifficant given the cluster size. Other studies dispute this as well. DrBuzz0 (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the cancer cluster is cited, and is published in the Archives of Environmental Health. So don't say there is no evidence. There is. If you don't agree with the article published in Archives of Environmental health, than make an argument for why you think it is flawed.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.201.97 (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cautious interpretation of associations is warranted" Arch Environ Health. 1996 Jul-Aug;51(4):266-74. - the article writers themselves tell you that their argument is flawed!

Is there any evidence that it's caused by the plant, rather than simply a random coincidence?

—WWoods (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ilya_shl/alex/92h_radiation_risk_leukemia_cancer.pdf The supposed cancer cluster in non-existent. Read the above Peer review article. Yes, it is useful to know what a probability distribution looks like. It also is important not to rely on anecdotal evidence when proper statistical interpretation of data is much more reliable. ^[1] --Bobabooeyoj (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://people.csail.mit.edu/ilya_shl/alex/92h_radiation_risk_leukemia_cancer.pdf

[1] ttp://people.csail.mit.edu/ilya_shl/alex/92h_radiation_risk_leukemia_cancer.pdf

[1]