Abstract
Individual reactions to a report which identifies an excess of risk near a putative source are determined mainly by some quoted significance level. One reaction, involving a commonly used 'coincidence' argument is given a simple Bayesian explanation. It is argued that interpretations of such reports should if possible allow both for data selection and for uncertainty in the null expectations underlying the significance levels. Tests are proposed, based on the first isotonic regression estimator under an order restriction, which allow for the effects of selecting a study region in the light of the data and have a simple form. Data on cancer incidence around two nuclear plants are used to illustrate.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.