Fukushima fallout caused significant increase in baby deaths?
That's the question being asked in Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout? http://www.counterpunch.org/sherman06102011.html
Search
That's the question being asked in Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout? http://www.counterpunch.org/sherman06102011.html
How do you know "Can we
How do you know "Can we attribute that to anything specific? No." ?
Can you assure us there wasn't a flu outbreak, cold weather, or some other outside factor in the weeks that you have tacked on to this study? How ? Are you a trained epidemiologist? I don't trust data from some untrained jackass on this subject. It's not just as simple as plugging in numbers.
And without checking their numbers how can you know you are comparing the same data set as they were using?
If there was bad science in the report, your science is even worse!
Sorry I touched a nerve
All I did was use the same data source that the authors sited in the article. And I *did* check their 4 week number. I stated as much in the following post in this thread:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4550#comment-10552
And no, I can't assure you that there wasn't a flu outbreak, cold weather or some other outside factor in the weeks prior to their 4 week period. But, in another post, I did point out the fact that the reports sited by the authors don't differentiate deaths by cause:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4550#comment-10548
Sorry I didn't initial those two posts to show that I did at least a little homework. But, those posts are from me.
Did the authors assure us that there wasn't any other cause for what they claimed to be a spike in infant deaths during the subsequent 10 week period? No, they didn't. That information isn't even available in the reports the authors referenced.
All I did was "tack on" the additional weeks that the authors should have included in the first place. You don't need to be a "trained epidemiologist" to know that comparing a short period with a long period is just plain bad analysis. It's not as simple is just plugging in any dates and cities you want.
And just for the record, name calling is a very good indicator of a weak position.
Hi VB, I just wanted to
Hi VB, I just wanted to caution against criticizing the epidemiological aspects too much, such as not ruling out other explanations. It appears to me that the authors have done the analysis in the way that science is done:
If so, the the data don't contradict the "null hypothesis" that no effect exists.
More data may be needed, or another effect should be investigated (go back to #1).
If so, then this gives evidence against the "null hypothesis," but not necessarily for the effect in question.
Further study of the effect can then proceed by refining the question and repeating the process starting at #1.
It is my belief, outlined below, that the researchers either made a mistake in step #3, or incorrectly went to step #5 instead of #4.
If an effect were found (i.e., step #5 were reached), then we could start asking questions about whether the effect was caused by Fukushima or other causes (flu, etc.). But there is clearly not enough data to tell whether there is an effect at all, and trying to argue that a non-existent effect could be caused by other things is pointless.
Just my two cents.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Far to vague
The methodology they used without looking at the details is far - FAR too vague to put the nuclear disaster in as a premise. No research points to very low dose radiation as causing infant mortality.
This was a political hit piece. There is nothing scientific about it. Some methodology may be reminiscent of scientific process - but there the similarity ends.
They were looking for a nuclear cause - neither is routinely involved in researching infant mortality and both actively advocate anti nuclear positions.
Thanks for jumping in
Hi Mark,
Sorry if I came across as criticizing the epidemiological aspects too much. That was not my intent.
My comments were directed at being assured that there were no other possible causes. Honest question, given that the article does not discuss any other possible causes, do you feel they assured us about that?
My comment/s should not be taken as me saying that, in their research, they didn't rule out other causes. They may very well have done that research. I'm just saying that it wasn't covered in the article.
If there is some other aspect that you believe I was out of line on, just let me know.
BTW, I agree with your statistical assessment.
Hi again VB, I see what
Hi again VB,
I see what you're saying, that there are many other things that would need to be done to connect the data directly to Fukushima, even if there were a significant increase. I agree with this — it fits into the steps listed in my question #5 above. However, I think that the researchers handled this appropriately by saying, among other things, "Why should we care if there may be is [sic] a link between Fukushima and the death of children?" [emphasis mine]. In my own words, all they ever say is "there is a significant increase, and it happened after Fukushima fallout appeared in the U.S." They claim a correlation, but you are talking about the further work that be required if causation were to be established. As far as I can tell, causation not explicitly stated (though it may be strongly implied).
Fortunately, the work of establishing causation doesn't have to be done, since there is no significant correlation.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Mark - Since we do not yet know all of the relevent data
I would take issue with your conclusion that "the work of establishing causation doesn't have to be done, since there is no significant correlation".
The fact is that we do NOT YET know all of the data they relied on nor do we know whether further analysis of past and future infant death rates and causes will provide evidence of correlation and statistical significance.
In a matter of weeks or months (and further analysis of the core data) the data MAY provide the evidence of correlation and statistical sifnificance may emerge and THEN the work of establishing causation (or lack thereof) may continue.
The stats so far reported and analyzed by Sherman and Mangano may not be enough to reach any conclusions TODAY but that does NOT mean that with further data such conclusions may not be reached shortly and hence the work WILL have to be done.
Time and data and analysis will tell whether or not establishing causation can or needs to be done or attempted.
In other words it is too soon to say whether the work of establishing causation will need to be done.
Now this I agree with
Bill,
While we have been on opposite sides of the fence on parts of this, regardless of where the data stands now, I whole heartedly agree with you that this needs to be watched. It would be a crime upon a crime to simply drop the subject because the early data show it. I hope the government is tracking this information for more than just keeping their jobs.
Correction
It would be a crime upon a crime to simply drop the subject because the early data doesn't show it.
Thanks, Mark
I obviously do believe that more data is required *if* we were going to proceed further with this.
But, my comment was not criticizing the epidemiological aspects. The origin of my comment (the one I believe you cautioned me on) was in response to a comment from another poster above. I was asked if I could assure that the extended time period I gave didn't include some known reason for higher infant deaths. To which I responded that I couldn't. And I simply pointed out that the authors offerend no such assurances *in the article* either. That subject wasn't even brought up in the article. That's a far cry from me saying that they didn't rule out other causes. Which I did NOT say. They may have ruled out other causes. But, I'm just not aware of it. So, I can't accuse them of not doing so.
Anyway, as you pointed out, the work of establishing causation doesn't have to be done. So, it's a mute point.
Thanks for all your hard work.
"And no, I can't assure you
"And no, I can't assure you that there wasn't a flu outbreak, cold weather or some other outside factor in the weeks prior to their 4 week period. But, in another post, I did point out the fact that the reports sited by the authors don't differentiate deaths by cause:"
I'm curious how you could know this, this could very well be the reason that they only used 4 weeks prior. If that is the case then they did differentiate deaths by cause at least to some point by excluding data that may be skewed by some outside force. Many of your comparisons are from winter to spring, how have you factored this into your conclusion that "the statistics are skewed in favor of the authors point"?
Have you factored the info in this link into your analysis,
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_which_months_do_most_deaths_occur_in_the_US
Looks like January, February, and March have the highest death rates, could that be the reason that they didn't use that data that you did? IDK I am not an epidemiologist, obviously you are.
It would seem that it is not as simple as just plugging in numbers.
"And just for the record, name calling is a very good indicator of a weak position."
Sorry, just callin them like I see them. I think my position is fine, thanks for caring though.
I read the CDC reports
I'm not saying that any research and related reports the authors did don't differentiate. I'm saying that, to my knowledge, the CDC reports they reference do not.
They very well may have done the research you say. But, all we have is that article and the CDC info they referenced to work off of. Which is why I've been saying that we need more data to draw conclusions. Note that I have not drawn any conclusions at all about the meaning of the data. I just tried to demonstrate that we need to be careful about how we just plug in numbers. Which I believe we both agree on.
Also note that I did not say the authors purposely skewed anything. I just pointed out that the dates selected skewed the results in favor of the authors point. Whether that was their intent or not, I have no clue.
Additional info from the CDC mortality reports
The reports also have the following footnote:
"Mortality data in this table are voluntarily reported from 122 cities in the United States, most of which have populations of >100,000. A death is reported by the place of its occurrence and by the week that the death certificate was filed. Fetal deaths are not included."
I take that to mean the deaths reported are not only from disease. The numbers are generated based on the number of death certificates filed by the 122 cities that choose to do so. So, I have to assume some of those deaths include congenital anomalies, accidents of all types, murder (including from child abuse) and natural disasters. I could be wrong, but I don't see anything in the report that says otherwise.
And since the deaths are "reported by the place of its occurrence", the deceased may not even reside in the city they died in. One possibility would be a patient transferred to specialist in the city for medical treatment. Or even as simple as a fatal accident involving someone who is just visiting the city. In that case, that city would get "credited" in the report with that death. But, the cause of that death may not have anything to do with the city itself.
So, it's not the best source of data to use for linking something to a perceived increase in deaths unless the analysis eliminates the non-disease and non-related disease deaths.
"And since the deaths are
"And since the deaths are "reported by the place of its occurrence", the deceased may not even reside in the city they died in. One possibility would be a patient transferred to specialist in the city for medical treatment. Or even as simple as a fatal accident involving someone who is just visiting the city. In that case, that city would get "credited" in the report with that death. But, the cause of that death may not have anything to do with the city itself."
Right, because we know the fallout stopped at those cities and only those cities received a little gift from TEPCO.
It was a simple point. From
It was a simple point.
From the article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/sherman06102011.html
"The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age"
And then they compare it with the rest of the country:
"This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant"
A lot of attention has been given to the proximity of the northwest U.S. to Japan and the levels detected there. This article and others have indicated that this area is going to experience a greater amount of health issues than the rest of the US. So, ok. Let's assume (just for a nanosecond) it's only a problem in the northwest. My point was that not all deaths in the northwest are people who reside there. Also, not all people (including infants) who die in the US reside in the northern hemisphere.
I have *from day one* questioned the "experts" always talking about the US west coast. Including CNN's Anderson Cooper asking "Do the people on the US west coast have anything to worry about?". I guess a lot of people think there's a big filter over the Rockies that stops it before going any farther east....
How many people do you
How many people do you really think traveled from a different region to give birth? Travel is discouraged by doctors at the end of pregnancy so I think the number of infant deaths from a different region would be low. Also by this logic just as many travelers would leave the northwest for other regions so I don't see how this would radically change the numbers.
Not linked to births
The CDC reports are reporting deaths. Regardless of where the person/infant was born.
The quote below is from the actual CDC reports:
"Mortality data in this table are voluntarily reported from 122 cities in the United States, most of which have populations of >100,000. A death is reported by the place of its occurrence and by the week that the death certificate was filed. Fetal deaths are not included."
You can find that below the last table in the following report:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm6011.pdf
That's fine, I'm sure any
That's fine, I'm sure any sure that any of these travelers breathed the air or drank the water in the cities they died in. Unless you have evidence of a statistically significant number of infants transported to these regions while on clean oxygen without drinking any tap water I can't see how this is an issue.
It's possible these people were abducted by aliens in the northeast and dropped off in the northwest but since I can't prove that I'm not sure it needs to be discussed here. Kinda like your point.
Link? You didn't check
Link?
You didn't check their numbers, not very scientific.
Here's the link to the page containing the many reports
Sorry.
I provided the link before. But, it's way down the thread now. Here it is again:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html
It's a pain to go through. I first validated their 4 week count. Then brought up and gathered data from each of the 6 previous weeks.
And just to expand on validating their numbers
I was operating under the assumption that they didn't blatently lie about the death count numbers. But, I did validate their 4 week/37 death count. That was to make sure I was looking at the right reports. They reported 37 and I found 37. Which showed that I was looking at the right data and that they were reporting the correct numbers for that peirod. That was good enough for me. So, I didn't validate their 10 week number. I assumed they at least had that correct.
If you have the time and patience, feel free to document the 80 data points for the 8 cities across the 10 weekly reports ending May 19, 2011. We can see if it adds up to the 125 deaths reported in the article.
Thanks anon, nice catch. I
Thanks anon, nice catch. I think I have some names to add to my BS list.
As opposed to the counter-punch authors?
You really cant be serious.
A must read for skeptics and others
http://sfbayview.com/2011/chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-25-y...
Janette D. Sherman, M.D., is a physician and toxicologist, specializing in chemicals and nuclear radiation that cause cancer and birth defects. The author of “Chemical Exposure and Disease” and “Life’s Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer” and editor of “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature,” she has worked in radiation and biologic research at the University of California nuclear facility and at the U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory at the Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco. From 1976-1982, she served on the advisory board for the EPA Toxic Substances Control Act. Throughout her career, she has served as a medical-legal expert witness for thousands of individuals harmed by exposure to toxic agents. Dr. Sherman’s primary interest is the prevention of illness through public education and patient awareness. She can be reached at toxdoc.js@verizon.net and www.janettesherman.com. Co-author Alexey V. Yablokov, Ph.D., can be reached at yablokov@voxnet.ru.
bump
bump
Historically this has been
Historically this has been reported as a common occurrence: http://ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/SFchp16.html
OK, this is a report by a physician (MD) and epidemiologist
I am VERY uncomfortable with BRAWM citing a link to a wikipedia page to attempt to contradict a physician and epidemiologist with extensive credentials and MANY years of experience studying EXACTLY the question of infant mortality from radiation contamination who report a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT rise in infant deaths and ask the question "Is this increase in infant mortality related to Fukushima".
It isn't just the Wikipedia citation which bothers me: BRAWM has repeatedly stated that they are NOT specialists in health physics.
UNLESS members of BRAWM are health physicists or MDs or epidemiologists then I would assert that the experts who wrote this article should be taken seriously.
OF COURSE a rather complicated statistics analysis critique by BRAWM is welcome for perspective. But unless members of the BRAWM team have the credentials and experience of Dr Sherman and epidemiologist Mangano, does BRAWM have the espertise to totally dismiss this report?
I really feel troubled that Sherman and Mangano's report of a HUGE increase in infant mortality in the Northwest since the Fukushima global nuclear disaster began is dismissed so facilely by anyone at BRAWM who do not hold such credentials.
I know both Mangano and Sherman and I have complete confidence that their assertions and analyses are accurate and substantiated by scientific data they have carefully analyzed. Dr Sherman edited the Chernonyl report published by the NY Academy of Sciences last year. Mangano has been studying the infant mortality issues and radiation for well over a decade. Can anyone at BRAWM claim such experience?
I am pretty disappointed in the cavalier dismissal by BRAWM of these infant deaths.
IF you dismiss the methodology, PLEASE do better than a wikipedia page as an authoritative source.
Frankly my math and statistical skills are pretty weak. That is why I rely on Medical Doctors and epidemiologists to provide analysis on what the figures mean.
Why
Why would you use statistical analysis on such a small study without checking actual cause of death? As a physician. Surly there are incredible variations year to year in just climate and respiratory diseases. Not to mention outbreaks like measles, H1N1 unique to this period as well as and other factors.
This is not adding up.
Statistical expertise
This is all very hard to
This is all very hard to wrap my head around. I've never taken a statistics class. I'm not an undergraduate or physics student and I don't have a doctorate like Bill. I often wonder if I'm qualified to participate in this forum. Can either of you...Mark or Bill...or anyone else offer an explanation of what this means to someone that lives in Seattle...has been drinking the milk...and is expecting a baby in Oct?
Mark - I owe you an apology
Simply stated - although I hold a doctorate, I never took statistics (my doctorate is not in a scientific field).
My own biases are showing because I have done some work with Joe Mangano and have interviewed Dr. Sherman and I have the greatest respect for them and their work.
I am rather troubled by this whole thing because I see what may well be "cherry picking" to raise alarums, and I also see an effort by Sherman and Mangano to make enough "noise" to get people to LOOK at this data and watch it and evaluate it carefully.
THIS they have accomplished, and the bright folks here at BRAWM and on this forum are ripping the data apart to get at the facts and truth --- which is a good thing.
I have not spoken with either of them nor do I know how or why they reported the data and conclusions as they did, but I was too quick to assume their data was unquesationable and your (BRAWM) critique of it was somehow biased.
I stand corrected.
MORE data is necessary and hopefully BRAWM or its affiliate academic colleagues will continue to monitor the infant deaths and, if possible, stillbirths and spontaneous abortions (if such data is reported) so that we can know whether there are correlations and statistically significant increases and then whether there is sufficient data to determine if Fukushima is the cause or a likley cause.
I also appreciate your reasoned and patient responses on this thread which deomstrates both caring and empathy as well as intellectual integrity.
I think for all of us that being challenged to articulate and defend and justify our opinions and positions makes this whole public forum experience infinitely more valuable. For that and for all the work and patience you muster, I am deeply appreciative.
So - my apologies. We shall SEE whether earless rabbits and infant deaths are harbingers of more aberrations and horrors to come from Fukushima. It is a good thing we are LOOKING. It is a REALLY good thing that BRAWM is looking and sampling and reporting and sharing and explaining and continuing to inform and edify us all. And it is historic - this will forever be a moment in history where such an unprecedented exchange of ideas and information help make the world a better and safer place because you (and we) thoroughly vetted all the questions and as much of the data as we could find.
No problem, Bill. Thanks
No problem, Bill. Thanks for listening to my earlier response. I totally understand where you are coming from, and as I said, I would also find it awful if such a strong effect were actually happening. These data are important to watch, but the caveat is that sometimes we humans see things we want to see in data. As a scientist, I have had to "unlearn" so many things in order to understand data and statistics properly.
I and the rest of BRAWM continue to invite open debate on this forum, especially when hard data are available. And we continue to be appreciative of everyone's critiques of how we are doing things here, and I hope that we are able to articulate better and better.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
> if such ... were actually
> if such ... were actually happening....
> but the caveat is that sometimes we humans see things
> we want to see in data. As a scientist, I have had to
> "unlearn" so many things in order to understand data
> and statistics properly.
Yep. Many thanks for the sanity check, and for your continued patience with commenters who don't understand what you're saying about the need to do the statistics with sufficient data.
This might help: http://www.larrygonick.com/html/pub/books/sci7.html
Bill agreed !
Bill I agree with your response, how stunning and horrible and shocking. We need to take this seriously, it is real. Not fiction.
Thank you for your response, it sums up my thoughts as well.
"I am VERY uncomfortable
"I am VERY uncomfortable with BRAWM citing a link to a wikipedia page to attempt to contradict a physician and epidemiologist"
I am very uncomfortable with you being unable to read. The wikipedia page was linked in order to illustrate the statistical analysis employed, not to CONTRADICT anything.
Ummmm --- yeah Mark said NO statistical significance
using the wikipedia page description of a statistics theory in order to prove Mark was right and Sherman and Mangano are wrong.
Wikipedia was the SOURCE for the info supposedly establishing the validity of his opinion.
I like wikipedia, but trying to understand the info there and Mark's explanations was impossible due to insiufficient and complicated info.
Mark says it simple, he says see the wiki page for the explanation of why its simple and then he says there is no extreme uptick in infant deaths in the last ten weeks in the northwest city's that were named which were contaminated with radiation from Japan and provides a convoluted rationale with no context and his only source for its validity is wikipedia!
anyway - enough with the ad hominem attacks. I have a doctorate. I can read.
Bill- You know this- There
Bill-
You know this-
There are lies, there are damned lies, and then..
There are statistics. That can be manipulated ever so well.
The method Mark cites is a method to make sense of statistics. A scientific method to do so.To cut the error out, and ensure 95% accuracy.
I hate what is going on, but this "newborn death" data set is no good. It is small, and let me ask you this - why in the hell would they use 4 weeks data pre-FK and 10 post-FK? I would bet you that the 4 weeks prior to are low due to not as many babies being born, etc. Also, as others have mentioned, cause of death is not mentioned in this data and how many of those kids died from the flu, car wrecks, etc. is not factored in at all.
I have measured more samples of grass, dust, etc, than I would care to mention with my piece-o-crap radmeter, and let me tell you, signal to noise was not good. This has led me to see that a small sample size can fit any belief you may have. Thus, we need scientific method.
BRAWM has shown themselves to be true to science. I am not sure how I feel about science some times, but in this situation, what else shall we reference to get a grip?
No, the wikipedia article
No, the wikipedia article was for us to have access to a reference in which the statistical analysis employed is summarized.
BRAWM uses similar statistical tools in order to determine the confidence range of their detections and they didn't learn about them through wikipedia.
You accusing BRAWM of basing their comments about the article on a wikipedia page is either consciously deceitful or a proof that you were not able to understand what was being said.
I agree completely....
There are different ways to examine data, and you've made some great points Bill.
First off, linking to the
First off, linking to the wikipedia page was just to show what Poisson statistics are since most people never have to use them. He was not sourcing it. Posting that website does not make them clueless about the subject. You do not need to be health physicists to understand statistics. That is something anyone can calculate, which is what Mark did. Claiming that Wikipedia is a poor source but then accepting this article that appears on a website for Counter Punch, which criticizes everything, seems odd. If it were true that there was a statistical increase then I would guarantee you it would be news.
Trusting these doctors is a different issue. One is an editor for the Chernobyl report which was found to contain numerous errors. In addition, someone who edited a report that counted all correlations as causation is clearly not an expert in statistics.
First, you need to provide a source for your claim
An epidemiologist is, by definition, an expert in statistics. Joseph Mangano is an epidemiologist who has been studying infant mortality and radiation for more than a decade. IF Joe says the infant mortality rate increase is statistically significant I BELIEVE him. It says in the article that they found these results statistically significant. Mark says in the title of his post that it is NOT statistically significant.
Who am I to believe? Someone I know persoanlly and trust who has a degree in epidemiology and has had many peer reviewed studies published or someone who does NOT have those credentials? Just asking.
As for Dr. Sherman - I have interviewed her and read her research and find her very reliable as a MEDICAL doctor with expertise on radiation and health (again well over ten years experience in this field with many articles and books and studies published). NOW:
You claim:
"someone who edited a report that counted all correlations as causation is clearly not an expert in statistics"
I assume you mean the NY Academy of Sciences Report edited by Dr. Janette Sherman and I assume that you must have some basis for your claim that that report "counted all correlations as causation". THAT report analyzed some 5000 studies published in Slavic, Russian and other languages by credentialed authorities and reached MANY conclusions.
I seriously doubt you can back up the claim that ALL correlations were counted as causation in the final report. Got links for that sausage?
However, correlations do, my friend, mean there is the POSSIBILITY of causation which merits further study.
OF course this is exactly the spurious argument that the tobacco and asbestos industry used so successfully to defend themselves: "JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE DIE OF LUNG CANCER AND MESOTHELIOMA AND WERE SMOKERS AND/OR WORKED WITH ASBESTOS FOR DECADES DOES NOT MEAN SMOKING/ASBESTOS CAUSED THEM TO DIE OR GET SICK" i.e. the industry ALWAYS argues that "correlation does not prove causation" and argue that MAYBE something ELSE caused your lung cancer (like, say, nuclear power plant emissions or teflon pan vapors) and NOT tobacco or asbestos.
It is too bad to see that old chestnut raised here to attack two people who have impeccable credentials despite the fact that only "alternate" media like Counterpunch will let them publish their article (which may have had edited out salient data)
I too would like to see more detailed data. But even without it I have complete confidence that when they (Sherman and Mangano)say there is statistical significance then they are accurate. They do NOT conclude that it is caused by Fukushima but raise that as a question for us to examine. But it is potentially a SEVERE problem when babies are dying (in the US, Japan or anywhere) and there is possible correlation and/or causation by Fukushima's radionculide plumes and contamination.
IF the infant mortality rates are skyrocketting or even increasing at ALL we must examine whether exposure to contaminated radionuclides in utero is related, correlated, or causing infant deaths (and, I would add, stillbirths and spontaneous abrtions).
I have said from the beginning that these stats would be the signifiers: infant mortality, spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, birth defects (many undetectable at birth but many obvious at birth) AND the potwntial mutation of viruses and bacterias causing pandemics or small epidemics regionally.
Fetuses, infants, bacteria, viruses, and offspring of all species (plants and animals) are the canaries in the gold mine. When they begin to die or mutate in increasing numbers that are statistically significant we KNOW that the hot particles or fuel fleas or cesium 137 or strontium 90 or whatever the hell is doing it is a likely cause. There may be synergistic effects where immune disorders trigger low resistance to mutated viruses which cause pregnant women to get sick combined with exposure of the fetus.
But we can NOT dismiss the POSSIBILITY so easily when actual EXPERTS are telling us we need to examine the info to get answers when MORE children in Fukushima contaminated zones in the US are dying shortly after birth.
Simply need complete data
While I've been consistently asking for additional data, I'm NOT saying that the report is false. All I'm saying is that the data provided in the article (2 periods of time that are significantly different in length) is not enough for me to be alarmed. There really isn't enough there for me to run with. I don't know the authors and I'm not going to take their word for it. There are too many inaccurate experts out there.
When I have time, I'll look at *10* weeks before and *10* weeks after Fukushima to see if there really is a difference in infant mortality rate. Until I see that data, that article is just suggesting a relationship between Fukushima and infant mortality that is not even close to being sufficiently supported by the data *in the article*.
As the old example on statistics goes, one can easily observe an increase in the number of people carrying umbrellas and come to the conclusion that unbrellas create rain....
I should also add...
That those with "impeccable credentials" should NOT "raise that as a question for us to examine". THEY are the supposed experts. Anyone can raise questions. It's the job of the experts to provide the *answers*. Otherwise, what is the purpose of getting information from them if we will have to do our own research anyway?
I agree that one needs to
I agree that one needs to look at any correlations and find the cause. But this report was so blatantly false, that I am amazed some doctors who have great credentials believe it. The NYAS no longer publishes it since it has severely damaged its reputation with the scientific community. Many of the papers contained in the report were themselves not peer reviewed and thus their conclusions do not stand up to our modern definitions of scientific validity.
The results are not statistically significant. Anyone can take the data form before and after and apply statistics to show there is no significance.
a few things
1. again - do you have a valid and authoritative link to establish your claims that the Chernobyl report is "blatantly false" or your claims related to NYAS? Their website says the book sold out.
2. Again, too, I trust a credentialled epidemiologist to "apply statistics" NOT "anyone can do it".
3. You still have not linked or attributed any of your claims that the report published by NYAS counted all correlations as causation, whch is what I was asking for.
You have documented none of your claims nor any credentials you claim gives you the expertise to provide such opinions - so sources would be appreciated.
Here is a good review that
Here is a good review that shows many faults in the book. It is a book, and not a scientific article. I have yet to find one health physicist who agrees with the conclusions of the books.
Anyone can learn and apply statistics. Yes most people trust those that use it often, but it is a very easy to show when people are not using them correctly.
As for you last point, I just ask you to read page 2 of the report. First, it claims that 80% of people in the region were healthy prior to the disaster. There is no source for this information. Then it is claimed they do not take into account any socioeconomic or screening factors and state the only variable is the disaster. Well immediately starting the paper stating the only variable to account for disease in a region is radiation does not make any epidemiological sense. Then stating they will not correlate illness with received dose because it is impossible is even worse. With that sort of logic, anyone in the US who got thyroid cancer since 1986 could blame it on Chernobyl.
The book review you link concludes, in part:
"the information it (the National Academy of Sciences Chernobyl Report Book) contains might well indicate effects which are not currently recognised. Amongst thelong catalogue of specific disorders, morbidity and mortality rates, there may well be impacts which can, and should, be attributed to both short and longterm radiation exposure following the Chernobyl accident
"The book concludes that continuing international
studies are required to identify the long term
impacts from Chernobyl. This is a conclusion with
which we can all agree..."
Oh good. More studies!
Really, I would not dismiss Dr Sherman and the 5000 studies which were edited into this book (some are bound to have imperfections). i do not have a copy of the report myself to respond point by point NOR can I respond to assertions out of context. IF, for example, you KNOW someone was dosed but there is no record of how much and they get leukemia within five years, can you prove with 100% certainty eiother way that it was or was not ther radiation? BUT can you dismiss its inclusion as significant simply because we do not know the EXACT dose they got?
If you are downwind of a toxic chemical spill and you die in the next 24 hours, it is reasonable to conclude that is PROBABLY what caused it without knowing the exact dose. 100% certainty? No. 100% Possibility? Yes. Probability by preponderence of the evidence? I would say 100% yes.
Scientifically one likes certainty. But the authors explain why their approach and report is different due to failures of others international bodies and governments to properly assess the risks and the damage and deaths.
I would not dismiss Dr. Sherman so easily. I would dismiss the claims of the pronuclear industry and governments whose lies got us into this deadly global toxicity and who should imho be arested and prosecuted for their lies and the harm they have done.
http://iopscience.iop.org/095
http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/31/1/B01/pdf/0952-4746_31_1_B01.pdf
No links, huh? I am not
No links, huh? I am not surprised.
Anybody got a sweater? It's getting pretty shilly in here?
"I would guarantee you it
"I would guarantee you it would be news."
Riiight I'm sure the report would go something like, "Yes we've been reporting that no harmful fallout would reach the US OOOps. Maybe we should have warned the pregnant women like the French did. Yes we realize that this news is going to cost our corporate owners a lot of money and we are somewhat responsible for some of these deaths, oopsies!"