[OpieCunningham]

http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/tmi.htm

Quote: A new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties.

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb97/wing.html

Quote: Exposure to high doses of radiation shortly after the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island may have increased cancer among Pennsylvanians downwind of the plant, scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill say.

[Natsu]

Is there a reason why you didn't quote the other part of the article?

"Various studies on health effects, including a 2002 study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh, have determined the average radiation dose to individuals near Three Mile Island at the time of the meltdown was about 1 millirem - much less than the average, annual, natural background dose for residents of the central Pennsylvania region. Twenty-five years later, there has been no significant rise in cancer deaths among residents living near the Three Mile Island site."

Also, that analysis of health statistics makes no claim of causality that I can find. There could be any number of other explanations, particularly when we know that radiation exposure is linked to cancer and there was no rise in the cancer rates. There's no explanation of how the time frame of two years came about, either, unless they can link it to the half-life of something or something like that.

[OpieCunningham]

Is there a reason why you didn't quote the other part of the article?

Yes. The claim was definitive that nothing bad happened. I was referencing information that states the opposite of that claim. If the claim had been definitive that everything bad happened I would have referenced information that states the opposite of that. The fact is, the health of the populace post-TMI is heavily debated. If I were attempting to hide the subset of information that supported the claim I would not have included the links.

[Natsu]

> Yes. The claim was definitive that nothing bad happened.

And that claim was correct. That study, even if one accepts it as absolute fact, does not support the hypothesis that the TMI accident was a contributing cause of death.

Even so, it would be interesting to compare how the increase in the death rate compared to "safe" things, such as traffic accidents, smoking, and other intentional risks that people take.

But that's the key word, isn't it? "Intentional" risks.

[OpieCunningham]

And that claim was correct.

No, it wasn't. As referenced, there are studies which demonstrate the exact opposite. Sorry, but it's simply a fact that those studies exist. Head in the sand doesn't make them go away.