Peer reviewed study on increased infant mortality, deaths and Fukushima
http://radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F. pdf
The conclusions are disturbing this is a peer reviewed paper and the stats appear reliable.
I will post an article which alerted me to this study in a few minutes.
I131 in Minamisoma tap water 3-2-12!! Still fissioning!?!?
Title: Iodine131 measured from tap water in Minamisoma
Source: Fukushima Diary
Date: March 5, 2012
Citizen’s volunteer group HCR reported Iodine 131 was measured from tap water in Minamisoma. [...]
Location : Daimachi Minamisoma
Date of the analysis : 3/2/2012 [...]
Iodine 131 : 5.37 +- 2.60 Bq/kg (Detectable amount : 4.01 Bq/kg)
Cesium 134 : ND (Detectable amount : 11.0 Bq/kg)
Cesium 137 : ND (Detectable amount : 11.7 Bq/kg)
2 sigma is nothing
Their result is two sigma away from zero. You'll get that from noise fluctuations occasionally without there being any I-131 at all. They should continue counting photons from their sample until they get down to a five sigma effect. Then they would have a significant result.
Suspicious
Iodine 131 : 5.37 +- 2.60 Bq/kg (Detectable amount : 4.01 Bq/kg)
Cesium 134 : ND (Detectable amount : 11.0 Bq/kg)
Cesium 137 : ND (Detectable amount : 11.7 Bq/kg)
Suspicious right there!! If there were fission, then there would be Cs-134 and Cs-137 which are also fission products, as is I-131.
The hallmark of continuing fission would be to see elevated levels in all these fission products, and not just 1 of 3.
They need to double check their analysis. Perhaps there is a natural radioisotope that they are misidentifying as I-131.
I131 in Minamisoma tap water 3-2-12!! Still fissioning!?!?
Title: Iodine131 measured from tap water in Minamisoma
Source: Fukushima Diary
Date: March 5, 2012
Citizen’s volunteer group HCR reported Iodine 131 was measured from tap water in Minamisoma. [...]
Location : Daimachi Minamisoma
Date of the analysis : 3/2/2012 [...]
Iodine 131 : 5.37 +- 2.60 Bq/kg (Detectable amount : 4.01 Bq/kg)
Cesium 134 : ND (Detectable amount : 11.0 Bq/kg)
Cesium 137 : ND (Detectable amount : 11.7 Bq/kg)
link
http://radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
Sorry - correct link is here
http://radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
Junk Science
The original poster misrepresented this paper as published in a peer reviewed journal. It was not. It was published in CounterPunch in June/July of 2011. CounterPunch's own statistician Pierre Sprey got suspicious and did his own analysis which showed the Mangano / Sherman results to be a fabrication:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4726#comment-12236
Mark of BRAWM drove the stake through the heart of this sorry piece of junk science with his analysis:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/fukushima-fallout-caused-significa...
Quoting:
does BRAWM have the espertise to totally dismiss this report?
Yes we do. I did not criticize anything epidemiology-related, such as their data-collecting methodology. They use data collected by the CDC, who are experts in epidemiological data. They then cite exactly the numbers they used to do their calculation, and then say they are "statistically significant." It is here that I take issue. Given those numbers, I am saying that they made a conclusion not supported by the data.
Unquote.
In addition to "junk science", there are "junk scientists". These despicable individuals eschew the tenets of science, honesty, accuracy, and objectivity; in favor of their own parochial political agendas. "Junk scientists" distort the data and create propaganda masquerading as a scientific report.
Legitimate scientists know these charlatans by name, and can challenge their reports anytime they crop up.
If someone wants to be taken seriously in a scientific forum, and not be shown to be a fool or propagandist ( amateur at best ); then they would do well not to post "scientific papers" that are authored by the likes of Mangano and/or Sherman.
Dear Anonymous: Actually, you
Dear Anonymous:
Actually, you are incorrect. The Mangano/Sherman paper was published in the December 2011 peer reviewed International Journal of Health Services. If you would have opened the link that the original poster provided, you would have seen this.
WSJ Market Watch 12/19/11 press release. Contains a synopsis of the paper's findings along with a brief curriculum vitae for Dr. Sherman and Mr. Mangano:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/medical-journal-article-14000-us-deaths...
USC Annenberg statement re: the peer reviewed paper, including quotes from the editor of the International Health Journal re: the legitimacy of the published data:
http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-...
Direct link to peer-reviewed scientific paper: http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
MM
The Rest of the Story
How about publicizing the rest of the story. Why hide it?
USC Annenberg statement re: the peer reviewed paper
http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/20/fukushima-alarmist-cla...
Fukushima: Alarmist Claim? Obscure Medical Journal? Proceed With Caution
As it turns out, the authors, Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, published a version of this study in the political newsletter Counterpunch, where it was quickly criticized. The critics charged that the authors had cherry-picked federal data on infant deaths so they would spike around the time of the Fukushima disaster.
...
As Scientific American's Michael Moyer writes: "The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims."
So how did such a seemingly flawed study wind up in a peer-reviewed journal?
Dear Anonymous: Really now,
Dear Anonymous:
Really now, if I were trying to hide anything why would I have provided links to the very source of negative feedback that you reference?
Of course I didn't hide anything. Via the Annenberg link that I provided, we see that Ostrov questioned the legitimacy of the data and supported Moyer's original criticism and asked the Journal of International Health Services' editor-in-chief, Vicente Navarro to respond to Moyer and others' claims questioning the legitimacy of the research.
Ostrov goes on to print Navarro's answer, which defended the decision to publish the paper, stating it had been reviewed by "2 outstanding scholars," and that they "trust their referees' judgment." Navarro goes on to invite Moyer to submit his criticisms to the Journal, where he said he would print them and felt confident the paper's authors would respond publicly.
Ostrov then prints Moyer's decline of the offer in its entirety.
Of course, this is all available in the link that I provided in my earlier post, as well as access to the first article that Ostrov published (and you quote). Her tone in both was, well, snarky. She was quite rude and condescending about the Journal of International Health Services and one should be sure to read Navarro's response to her criticisms in the comments section below the article. Again, this was all available via the link I originally provided.
So, Anonymous, I am about full disclosure here, and again you follow your preconceived prejudices and jump to accuse without getting your facts straight. Several times in this forum you have made false assumptions, which indicates a lack of scientific integrity.
Back to the epidemiological paper, I do not know whether the conclusions it makes are accurate but like it or not, this is clearly a study that some scientists respect and are taking seriously, although BRAWM, and you, and others, do not.
MadMama
DESPICABLE!!!
All of the above post is an irrelevant non sequitur. One can not escape the facts that Mangano and Sherman wrote a "junk science" paper that distorted the facts. As Mark of BRAWM stated, the data doesn't support the conclusions that Mangano and Sherman drew.
Somehow a scientific journal missed the obvious distortions in the paper. Those distortions and "cherry picking" were picked up by CounterPunch's statistician, and by Moyer at Scientific American, and numerous others. However, somehow this journal and its "outstanding reviewers" missed the obvious distortions. This should be an time for shame that a scientific journal should miss this.
However, we have those that are trumpeting and rejoicing that a paper full of distortions, lies, and half-truths got published. How utterly despicable. However, it is not out of character for the anti-nukes, as they are not seekers of truth.
The anti-nukes are so self-righteous that they see any way that furthers their cause as good, regardless of how morally bankrupt the techiques are.
The anti-nukes always decry how the nuclear industry is telling "lies" and how terrible that is. However, it is the anti-nukes that are the ones telling lies.
Hypocrisy; thy name is anti-nuke.
Your final conclusion is seriously in error I don't know ANY legitimate scientists that take Mangano and Sherman seriously or respect them.
How can you possibly not know that the study is inaccurate? Did you read it? Mangano and Sherman chose differing times before and after the Fukushima incident to average their stochastic data. Do you not know that is "cherry picking"??? How can people not know that is "cherry picking" and a distortion?
Actually, it is easy for people who have no moral compass. They are without morals and don't care what is right or wrong. They only care about advancing their own parochial political agenda.
Such people are despicable and morally bankrupt.
"despicable and morally
"despicable and morally bankrupt."
That's you, you stinkin' dirty cowardly shill. Because you are an immature name calling coward, those of us searching for a balance of information disregard you.
Carry on.
DISCREDITED study
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4726
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4550
This again??? It was DISCREDITED
We discussed this earlier on this forum.
Mangano and Sherman "cherry-picked" their data. They "cooked the books".
Check the archives of this forum to see where this study was thoroughly DISCREDITED by the scientists here.