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
Well I know what you said is
Well I know what you said is completely false. For example, GE made the reactors and has a huge share in NBC. Now whenever there was a faulty piece of equipment or a recall NBC reported on it and had to say GE was a parent company. There was a good Daily Show clip about it. So they have reported bad news about their parent company before. People need to stop being conspiracy theorists.
So what, sometimes in the
So what, sometimes in the past MSNBC mentioned that GE was their parent company? That would prove me false if that was what I said instead of a big red herring.
GE didn't tell pregnant
GE didn't tell pregnant women to shut up and drink the milk
I agree
There is little if anything *in that specific article* that requires specialists in health physics to analyze the numbers given. The numbers of nothing to do with health. And everything to do with...well....numbers.
The article raises more questions than allows us to come to any conclusions.
Yes, but...
...They're IMPORTANT questions. And the timing of such a "statistical blip", if that's what this is, is... off-putting. Couple that with the area involved -- known, in the case of places like Boise, as significant Fukushima fallout locations -- and it's enough that someone ought to start doing some digging.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Time will tell
I agree that these numbers, be that they are not YET statistically significant, are really disturbing. We are only 3 months into this and we have these numbers, that to me is significant. If these were for infants (and I have not read the report) born only in the last 3 -4 months than we have about 7 more months of gestation statistics to cover,and then there will be a better picture of this mess. The crucial months are the first 5-6 months of gestation, so unfortunately there should be more to come if this is Fukushima related, right? Either way, I agree that these numbers are worth noticing and justify further studies....which may have been the articles main point.
I agree that it should be dug into
These are obviously important questions. But, they really need to do a MUCH better job of communicating such critical information. Using only *2* different sample periods of significantly different lengths of time, and comparisons using different units (deaths per week vs deaths per 1000 births) is not what I'd expect of experts providing reports on these things.
So, while I agree this should be and better be looked at, that article wasn't required for us to discover the need.
"that article wasn't
"that article wasn't required for us to discover the need."
Well I'm sure you're on top of it.Could I see your report Dr.?
Geez
You don't need a degree to figure out that monitoring infant (or any age group) health and deaths is the right thing to do at a time of radioactive fallout. And we didn't need the article to help us figure out that need. What we needed from the article was broader and more consistent data to review.
Quoted from another thread
Quoted from another thread seemed relevant here
\
Life is beautiful!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-06-11 20:17.
These comments here show that the ability of the human mind to protect itself from trauma is really quite impressive. By all means, throw rocks at those who attempt to do any investigative reporting that reveals imminent danger and suffering, from natural or man-made disasters. Better that the danger is man-made because then we can control it, right? How are we doing on controlling nuclear energy production now? What we really need are nuclear reactors that are immersible, impenetrable, totally enclosable, and automatically infallible, to function far beyond the short sighted illusions of humans. How soon are we going to get there? The reality is that the world wide threat of the reactors' spent fuel pools (the one's that haven't blown yet), the common pools, and corium hitting the ground table water are yet to be revealed! On top of this, we are in the midst of a full blown media blitz, to protect whom I ask? Surely a cover up does not protect the children of Japan, pregnant women, and all the marine and animal life of Honshu. Guess what, the media blitz is not going to protect you from accumulation of all the rad isotopes that are going around the globe for the next thousand(s) of years. The accrual of all our testing, all the little 'oops' from current nuclear reactors, and the continuing DUMP of radioactivity into the Pacific Ocean and air from Fukushima is guaranteed to change your DNA and mine. Unfortunately, the genetic errors it creates are permanent, that is, they are not self repairing in future generations. It is said that radioactivity deletes a portion of DNA that makes humans unique from all the other carbon life forms. Of course, it may take another 2,000 years for humans to realize what they've done to themselves. What a pity. 'No, Martha, this disaster is not over, far from it.'
Quoted from the same thread
"But, those who slant information to their own advantage are not interested in keeping us completely informed. And they deserve to have rocks thrown at them. Calling out those that put out a steady and very one dimensional stream of fear headlines has nothing to do with "the ability of the human mind to protect itself from trauma". It has everything to do with the disgust they instill in anyone that is simply trying to find out all the facts. But, instead, has to wade through their self serving attempts to put as negative spin on things as possible so they can stay "relevant" and profit from this disaster as long as possible"
I'm NOT saying the above necessarily applies to Janette D. Sherman, M. D.
or Joseph Mangano. But, I AM saying that it's fair game to question their motives AND critique their information. And again, I'm only referring to their information regarding Fukushima's impact on the US infant mortality rate. NOT their Chernobyl information.
I am skeptical of this, it
I am skeptical of this, it looked to me like the sample size was quite small. Also, was the number of deaths adjusted for the number of births?
How about a graph, or a chart, or a hot link showing us a year's worth of data? Maybe the four weeks they used for the pre-FK baseline were abnormally low.
Also, as some here have already mentioned, did the fallout stop in California? No. So, can we see what the trend is in the rest of the US?
I hate this damned FK thing so much I could puke, but worry that anyone can claim anything has been caused by the meltdown and just add more BS to the already quite large pile.
Not statistically significant
Nice of them to just dump a bunch of numbers out
I agree. They didn't even bother to provide links to the data they were using. And deaths by what? Did they include car accidents, fires, child abuse, etc?
For those who have the time to investigate this, you can find the data in the following link:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html
If you look into it, please let us know what you find.
"Also, as some here have
"Also, as some here have already mentioned, did the fallout stop in California? No. So, can we see what the trend is in the rest of the US?"
This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant.
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)
Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR = Not California
loss of credibility
When the forum hosts respond in the manner above it shows that they are not really interested in facilitating information exchange but appear to be more involved in public relations as apologists for the nuclear industry. Criticizing the methodology in an attempt to invalidate the numbers without actually having researched the CDC data (or the methodology) clearly shows their true intent and lack of scientific scrutiny.
I suppose they feel threatened because if the US receives enough damage from failed nuclear facilities the American people may shut nuclear energy down as Germany and other EU countries are beginning to do.
I have felt this to. Far too
I have felt this to. Far too much spin here.
Dude, you're paranoid and
Dude, you're paranoid and quite rude. This is simple statistics. You can't argue with logic. If something isn't statistically significant it doesn't become statistically significant just because you expect it to be.
Psychiatric analysis
Thanks for the free psychiatric analysis; especially coming from an unidentified self-proclaiming UCB physicist. I'm sure it's worth every penny of the cost. Statistics developed from results instead of the actual data points is worthless. Study a lot of statistics, do you? Hummm, perhaps you'd better stick to physics. Rude? Try adding something constructive and please try to avoid personal attacks in the future.
Oh my god. You are truly
Oh my god. You are truly hilarious.
Please avoid ad hominem attacks/name calling
The authors of the article have an advanced degree in public health and a medical doctorate and they are experts in this field.
Dismissal of the report by BRAWM as NOT statistically significant where the experts who wrote the article specifically state that there ARE statistically significant death increases in infants once the radiation reached the US is NOT a move which inspires confidence in objectivity re: the risks.
Now, having said that, I am no expert on statistics but I know they can be manipulated by such subjective criteria as the Poisson configuration (which is, in itself, just another methodology which may or may not be entirely valid --- but I am not qualified enough to say.
What I do know is that IF the numbers are correct and infant deaths jumped from an average of 37 a month prior to Fukushima to 50 a month after Fukushima began, then that LOOKS like a preliminary statistic that is significant.
OBVIOUSLY longer term trends need to be monitored and the details of the kinds of deaths (deaths due to disease vs accidents, etc) must be studied.
But as a VERY PRELIMINARY report the authors have ASKED THE QUESTION to WARN us that infant deaths APPEAR in these very preliminary statistics to be rising by 35%!
That is 40 deaths of tiny children (infants) in California and several other Northwestern cities that MIGHT have been caused by the radiation from Fukushima. Or maybe a combination of radiation and stress. Or maybe stress alone. Or maybe none of the above.
The authors are not claiming that Fukushima CAUSED these deaths (yet) - they are saying that this is a JUMP in infant deaths in cities known to have been contaminated by fallout from Fukushima by a massively huge percentage (35% compared to less than 3% nationally for the same periods).
They say this jump is statistically significant (NOT proof, but evidence). BRAWM is saying its NOT significant based on a statistical theory that is so complex hardly any lay person can understand it especially when the numbers are pretty solid. DEATHS then and DEATHS NOW. There is little margin of error. The deaths were reported deaths.
A total of FORTY more deaths of infants than before Fukushima.
We need to look further, not discredit the qulaified messengers of this data which is hard data and wuith the BRAWM reports we KNOW these cities were contaminated with radioiodine and radiocesium which are known mutagens and illness producers (cesium by itself is a known poison to the human body).
For BRAWM to so cavalierly totally dismiss this hard data by public health experts, an epidemiologist and an MD with special expertise in toxic substances and infant mortality, and this dismissal based on an obscure statistical methodology used by someone who is NOT a public health specialist or epidemiologist - that gives the APPEARANCE of favoring the industry attempt to downplay the harm and the risk.
NOW we could be wrong and there is no bias here. But it is not paranoid to be skeptical when a medical doctor and epidemiologist are directly contradicted.
Frankly, the Poisson analysis seems subjective and sketchy when you have a specific number of bodies.
But TIME will tell if the "trend", if you can call it that, is more than a statistical anomaly. Mark MAY be right too. OR he is completely wrong. Frankly it is too soon to say it is not significant which is what bothers me. It may not be definitively significant, but it is an alrming increase if the numbers are accurate and I believe they are.
public health experts
Before I called someone an "expert" id do some research.
1. Joseph Mangano is heavily involved in the tooth fairy project.
"The Tooth Fairy Project is a pseudoscientific research project undertaken by an anti-nuclear organization called Radiation and Public Health Project. It intends to demonstrate that routine emissions of very small amounts of radioactivity from nuclear power plants have a measurable impact on the health of people living near those facilities." ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tooth_Fairy_Project )
2. As for the two;'s recently published article on strontium 90 in baby teeth as proxy related to exposure from testing and cancer - it hasn't been duplicated and its not a proven causative link. There are studies of known fallout exposure cases in the Marshall islands that do not corroborate those predictions.
3. Ad hominem arguments are valid when professional standing/rank are used in a argument, by definition. Not here of course but in this case with these authors it is. Thats just how it works.
Ill also add the counter-punch article is not referenced science. Not even close. How anyone could use such small numbers without even looking up the case of death is pure incompetence and fear-mongering.
Sorry, bad math- THIRTYTWO more deaths/month in the 8 nw cities
after Fukushima.
I said forty when I should have said THIRTY TWO infants dead
who might have died due to radiation from Fukushima.
We must watch these stats carefully.
This petty difference over stats will dissolve quickly if this is a trend which can be established AND keep in mind that even BRAWM has made erors and corrected them. I know Joe Mangano and Dr, Sherman and expcect they will analize this data carefuly and report it and any POISSON analysis or whatever will either prove them correct or prove BRAWM correct in the short term.
This debate and these issues played out here in public are historic so open debate is good. But calling people paranoid is uncalled for. Speculating on BRAWM's objectivity has been part of this forum from the start. They have contracts with the government and so their objectivity may be suspect. But as long as they are honest with the data I understand the rules: they are helpful when they give us test results and explain them - even if I disagree with them on drinking contaminated milk, for example.
What are the hypotheses
What are the hypotheses about the permanency of the fallout on infant deaths?
Null: No effect of fallout on infant mortality in NW cities.
Alt 1: Positive effect that does not decay over time.
Alt 2: Positive effect that increases temporarily but then reverts back to pre-Fukushima levels.
Other possibilities of course...
An epidemiologist is, by
An epidemiologist is, by definition, an expert in statistics. I think I will roll with him on this one, when I am interested in Radiological Air and Water Monitoring I will hit up BRAWM. See how that works?
Causes of death
These are not mysterious deaths. Cause of death is recorded information. Using such a small sample and making such claims and not bothering to look up recorded causes is very suspect. Ok. Its not just unusual. Its beyond bizarre.
Radiation doesn't just arbitrary case every other disease known to man.
This is a university site. Im surprised this article has even been left up.
How to do the analysis
Another way to do this analysis is with time-series analysis. I think the particular technique is called "intervention analysis" by econometricians. E.g., Economist Walter Enders and his colleague used time-series data on skyjackings to test the hypothesis that the introduction of metal detectors reduced their frequency (the result was that they were estimated to have done so).
If you consult his 2010 Applied Time-Series, I remember him covering it. Here you are testing the hypothesis that Fukushima fallout increased the rate of infant mortality in the selected Northwestern cities. With more sophisticated techniques you can estimate the decay of the effect (or "intervention").
size
The sample is too small and has far too many variables to support that conclusion.
I would like to see some supporting documentation from the authors as if this came from them it is a serious claim.