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

Honshu Birth Ratio

Honshu Birth Ratio

Expect: 2011 - 2012
‘at birth sex ratio’ has declined to ~ 0.85 M/F
Increase infant mortality
Decrease in total fertility rate

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html

Sex ratio:
at birth: 1.056 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.02 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.74 male(s)/female
total population: 0.95 male(s)/female (2011 est

Infant mortality rate:
total: 2.78 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 218
male: 2.98 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 2.58 deaths/1,000 live births (2011 est.)

Total fertility rate:
1.21 children born/woman (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 218

TEPCO lowball #s

*

After only 100 hours, more Cesium than Chernobyl and still counting. These TEPCO numbers are probably still lowballed.

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/pdf/attach_04_2.pdf

Abstracts of the cross check analysis on the evaluation of the cores
of Unit 1, 2 and 3 of Fukkushima Dai-ichi NPP reported by TEPCO

Attachment IV-2 (Page 7) ---- Table 5

Preliminary calculation of Fission Products released to the environment
in the early stage (1st 100 Hours) of Fukushima Ddai-ichi accident

Radionuclide --- Becquerel Total for 1st 100 Hours

Xe-133 ---------- 1.1×10?19
I-131 ------------- 1.6×1017
Cs-134 ---------- 1.8×10?16
Cs-137 ---------- 1.5×10?16

:( The dramatic change in

:(

The dramatic change in Honshu Island IUFD and miscarriage rates are directly tied to the radionuclides. The infants with thyroid disorders are also connected.

Few Live Male Births

“Unusually low number of males were born 6 to 7 months after Chernobyl”

www.eht-journal.net/index.php/ehtj/article/download/7109/8200

Can environmental or occupational hazards alter the sex ratio at birth? A systematic review

Metrecia L. Terrell1, Kathleen P. Hartnett1 and Michele Marcus1,2*
1 Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA;
2 Departments of Epidemiology and Environment Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

After finding that an unusually low number of males were born 6 to 7 months after Chernobyl, Peterka and colleagues (86) hypothesized that a disproportionate number of male fetuses miscarried. The researchers proposed that radioactive iodine-131, which was present in high amounts after Chernobyl and has been associated with high miscarriage rates, may have been particularly hazardous to males between 8 and 12 weeks gestation.

86. Peterka M, Peterkova R, Likovsky Z. Chernobyl: Prenatal loss of four hundred male fetuses in the Czech Republic. Reprod Toxicol. 2004;18:75 9.

Changes in sex ratio & stillbirths

http://www.rense.com/general93/chern.htm

27) In Greece, infants born between 1.7.86 and 31.12.87, exposed to Chernobyl fallout in utero, had 2.6 times the incidence of leukemia compared to children born between 1.1.80 and 31.12.85 and between 1.1.88 and 31.12.90. (Petridou et al, 2004)

28) Changes in the sex ratio and the stillbirth odds ratio for gender were significant for Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Latvia and Sweden (Scherb and Wiegelt, 2000).

29) Great Britain. Ten months after the catastrophe, a significant increase in perinatal mortality was found in the two most contaminated areas of the country (Bentham, 1991).

30) Sweden. Infant mortality increased immediately after the catastrophe and increased significantly in 1989-1992 (Korblein, 2008).

Japan Radiation Levels

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/images/photos2011/nq20111111gra.jpg

MicroSieverts/Hour

Radiation Values For Eastern Japan

Related Thread:

BC announces province-wide infant mortality spike

The province of British Columbia today announced that infant mortality for the first six months of 2011 exceeded the infant mortality for all of 2010.

Officials attribute the infant mortality spike to "poor parent training."

In the CBC story on the announcement, no mention was made of Fukushima.

More discussion

The matter is discussed at
http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/

At least my numbers have now been verified

Well, I can breath a sigh of relief on two fronts:

1. The numbers in this article match what I had posted in the other follow-up thread. I too was confused by not being able to duplicate the results in the article:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4726#comment-12277

2. Much more importantly, there is no evidence of increased infant death.

So sad. It's like Dr Mangano

So sad. It's like Dr Mangano is purposely trying to discredit the whole anti-nuclear movement. Aren't the evidences of contamination strong enough that he felt the need to falsify statistics of infant deaths to top it off? Did he really expect the lobby not to double check some numbers that are publicly available?

Not just "the lobby"

Not just "the lobby" would/should be verifying those numbers. Every concerned citizen should have been verifying the numbers. We are talking about the possibility of increased infant death, for crying out loud!!!

Yeah, sorry about that VB.

Yeah, sorry about that VB. Good job checking the numbers and reaching your own conclusions.

Internal exposures

DON’T eat your vegetables!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/24_02.html

A group of doctors has found that the estimated level of accumulated internal radiation exposure for people living in Fukushima Prefecture has exceeded 3 millisieverts. The researchers, including doctors who have provided medical care to A-bomb survivors, conducted analysis on the food and urine of 15 residents in Iitate Village and Kawamata Town in Fukushima Prefecture. These areas are about 40 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

They estimate that residents have been internally exposed to up to 3.2 millisieverts for about 2 months, measuring from the date of the accident in March until early May. Three millisieverts is 3 times higher than the long-term annual limit for ordinary people recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. One of the researchers, Nanao Kamada, says people should refrain from eating vegetables grown in the area where high levels of radiation have been detected.

Friday, June 24, 2011 07:00 +0900 (JST)

Areas of heaviest deposition

The two locations where they did the analysis are in areas of heaviest deposition. They are approx. 40km NNW of the Fukushima plant.

You can can view the airborne and deposition maps from the MEXT/DOE survey in the following site:

MEXT and DOE Airborne Monitoring

Including some follow up information on this subject

Just wanted to add the follow up info to this original thread.

The same web site responded to posts in this forum. They said they asked a statistical consultant to look at the analysis done in the original article. You can see the post discussing this in the following link:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4726

once a post gets over about

once a post gets over about 20 responses, it gets really hard to figure out which one's most current, with all the different "responses to responses." I guess if a post like this gets up to 100, I'm in the minority though.

See

See http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?WT.mc_id=SA_Twitter_scia...

Fukushima was (and still is!) a horrible disaster, but that doesn't excuse dishonest statistical analysis based on the subset of data which best proves your point

opinion piece by tech

opinion piece by tech editor, the only thing I want his opinion about is the new playstation, thanks.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06172011.html

Few US miscarriages from Fukushima

.

A statistically significant radiological hazard exists for: fetuses, children, pregnant women, pubescent women and lactating women who live or have spent significant time within 200 miles of the Fukushima nuclear plant.

This hazard will, in most instances, prove to be closely tied to radionuclide uptake. Some Acute Radiation Sickness cases have been reported ... in Japan. A huge spike in radiation associated health maladies is now underway, also in Japan.

The US level of radionuclide exposure from Fukushima radioactive fallout is much lower than in Japan. This lower exposure will result in a much smaller array of early health problems but will produce a sizable jump in the US cancer rate. This will be especially pronounced in the vulnerable populations indicated above.

More info

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/is-iodine-131-killing-bab...

A researcher says the death rate among babies is up 48 percent since Iodine-131 was found in Philadelphia’s drinking water

Red Herring Alert

.

This Philadelphia water Iodine content, is a rather clumsily set trap and overworked Red Herring.

The matter is raised: of, by and for shills; to divert attention from Fukushima related health hazards and real economic damages.

The Philadelphia iodine is a local problem; completely unrelated to the Fukushima disaster.

Pure Red Herring

.
Philadelphia Says Radioactive Water Not Related To Japan Events

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/philly-iodine-131-dates-b...
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/04/12/philadelphia-says-radioactiv...

Chris Crockett of the Philadelphia Water Department says:

Water samples were collected from the Schuylkill River in August 2010

City is working with federal & state authorities to locate the I-131 source in the Schuylkill Watershed

Water treatment department by added carbon to remove I-131 from drinking water

... Thus, there is NO connection to the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Here is what I've noticed

Here is what I've noticed about this particular poster. He likes to throw the "Red Herring Alert". He creates circular firing squads among posters. He contradicts himself. When he doesn't like a particular thread topic he will do everything in his power to disrupt and derail it by 1. jumping on thread and calling OP names 2. confusing thread by introducing morbid and frightening articles unrelated to the thread topic. 3. utilizing several monikers to "create" the illusion of a fan base and bolster his argument. This is a realllllly insidious little SOB.

:( Red Herring Alert! This

:(
Red Herring Alert! This man is a shill and is out to destroy my reputation!!! How can you sit back and not fear when little radioactive hot particles embed themselves in our baby's bones forever irradiating their precious little genetic material. Oh what a world! What a world!
:(

Too much!

How much do you get paid to post this silliness?Seriously

Do you have a link to an expert (any expert), that says 100% conclusively that this is "completely unrelated to the Fukushima disaster" ?I.E. The levels in Philadelphia were not raised in any way by the Fukushima disaster.

I don't think you can since the EPA did detect levels there. I suppose the other detections all across the country were "a local problem; completely unrelated to the Fukushima disaster" too.
It doesn't really matter anyway since the previous iodine problem there predates the baseline.

In informal logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycfhek_0rc8&feature=mh_lolz&list=FLzMpo12...

Watch the video again, nobody on this report is saying this is conclusive data. In fact at the end this "shill" as you so hypocritically call him says , yes this could just be a blip in the stats but we need to keep an eye on it.

Could you link me to someone who disagrees with that? Excepting yourself, of course.

Poisson statistics?

Poisson statistics?

Data for Philadelphia

This is the same type of report as the one that started this thread.

There are no actual dates given in this article, but using the same 10 week period as in the article about Seattle (weeks 12-21), the CDC data shows the following for the past 4 years in Philadelphia:

2011 56
2010 61
2009 65
2008 68
2007 77

You can search for yourself: http://wonder.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwrmort.asp

The article also leaves out that the EPA reported that there was iodine-131 in the Philadelphia drinking water *well before* Fukushima. As far back as 2005.

http://articles.philly.com/2011-05-09/news/29525373_1_drinking-water-wat...

Correction

Same 10 week period as used for the 8 west coast cities. Not just Seattle as I stated above.

Philadelphia weeks 1 through 23

Here's the CDC data for Philadelphia that I got for the first 23 weeks
of the last 5 years:

2011: 163 or 7.09 per week
2010: 136 or 5.91 per week
2009: 179 or 7.78 per week
2008: 145 or 6.30 per week
2007: 157 or 6.83 per week

This must very much please

This must very much please the bloodthirsty globalists.

It's a good point to note --

It's a good point to note -- the Masters of our pyramid scheme psychopaths of the highest order.

2010 Data To Compare With

I found a MUCH easier web page to get this information from so you don't have to open up each weekly report, find the cities of interest and manually extract the number. You can get an entire years worth of weekly death stats for each city. It's easy to copy and paste each city chart into Excel. Then you can grab whatever you want after that. So, this will be very easy to monitor in the future.

http://wonder.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwrmort.asp

I got information for the 8 and 10 week periods (weeks 8-11 and 12-21) for 2011 just to make sure they were the same as in the article. They were. I then got information for the same 8 cities for the same week numbers in 2010. Below is what I found:

Week 8-11 2010 44
Week 12-21 2010 122

Week 8-11 2011 37
Week 12-21 2011 125

So, it looks like the 10 week period they used this year is 3 deaths higher than last year. a 2.5% increase.

2009 Data

Just so we have 3 years worth of data, here's the stats for the same weeks in 2009.

Week 8-11 2009 58 (SF info "unavailable" for weeks 8 & 9)
Week 12-21 2009 149

Correction to length of periods

A couple of things.

1. Forgot to initial the post (VB)
2. It's for 4 and 10 week periods as the authors used. Not 8 and 10 as I stated originally.

REPOST

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?

Hi, and congrats on the mysterious little life inside you!

1. At this point I agree that this report does not show a definite increase in infant mortality basd on the info provided.

2. IF you have been drinking the milk and eating fresh local produce there is the possibility that you have ingested some potentially harmful Fukushima "by-products" that could potentially impact your baby's health - BUT no one here is really qualified to tell you what the % of risk is or what the exact risk would be.

3. I believe that IF I were you I would avoid the milk for now due to the cesium and get another source of calcium and vitamin D and protein from a safer source (see the thread here on "safe foods". It is not a perfect colution but it might help.

4. Certain foods and herbs have "radioprotective" effects which csan help you and your baby IF you have any exposure. I myself use turmeric and frozen blueberies and as much tropial fruit (not from hawaii) and foods with antioxidents as I can afford. These can help prevent cell damage and help repair other damage from radiocesium etc. Iodine supplements also should help.

5. Since we know there was radioiodine in the milk many placs there may be issues you and your child will have with hypothyroidism or other thyroid problems (these are relatively easily treated with natural thyroid). i would make sure you monitor this with your pediatrician after the birth and suggest reading Mary Shomon's site online re: hypothyrodism.

6. The possibility of some affect on your baby in utero is always there from many sources and contaminants in the environment - so healthy eating, lifestyle, etc and closer monitoring of health and well being may be required due to the possible exposure from Fukushima and many other sources/pollutants.

Bottom line is that right now there is NO real evidence that your child will be harmed in any way from any exposure you may have had. Based on what BRAWM says and even most authorities agree, there is ALWAYS the potential risk of harm from exposure. But whether these risks are 1 in 1000, 1 in 10,000, 1 in 100 or less or more is really what we will hopefully be able to know better after this disaster and no one really knows.

We are all guinea pigs in this nasty experiment as are all of our children which is why I believe criminal prosecutions are in order for the industry and governments who allow such contamination to happen. One nuclear scientists says they should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and I agree with that. NO child in utero or mother should be exposed at ALL. ONLY shutting down all the plants will reduce these risks to a much more acceptable level (that and doing dry cask storage of the waste when it is possible).

Let us know how your pregnancy progresses. Chances are you will have no problems whatsoever so do not worry. But do educate yourself and take what steps you can to minimize the risk and protect yourself aremed with knowledge and information about the risks and steps you can take to reduce the risks.

Effects on Pregnancy

The numbers are unclear, and I'm not seeing a strong trend. If I were you, I wouldn't worry, but I would take preventive measures as were suggested: in addition to the prenatal vitamins you should be on already, you can make sure you take other nutrients known to support the immune system, particularly the thyroid. Don't do anything crazy! Make sure you have B vitamins, selenium, Vitamin C, and iodized salt, for example. If you're concerned, speak with your doctor. If you have an M.D. that isn't hip, then talk to a natural health practitioner who knows more about nutrition.

Two Points

A couple of points. The BRAWM team can provide input or correct these as necessary:

1. The BRAWM team has said that, statistically speaking, the numbers quoted in the article do not represent a significant increase.

2. When equal lengths of time are reviewed (10 weeks before and 10 weeks after the fallout reached the US west coast), infant mortality count in those cities was effectively the same for both periods.

There may be other factors that could influence the 2 points above. But, that's all the information we have at this time.

Thank you for the

Thank you for the clarification. Those stats look a little different when you are in the city...drinking the milk...and wondering about the well being of the mysterious little life inside of you.

Stop worrying about it

Your anxiety is doing far more harm to your baby than Fukushima is.

I completely understand

When you read there's a 35% increase in infant deaths, it will obviously be EXTREMELY alarming.

I really wish the experts in the field would complete their assessment of the subject before they actually report it. And then provide a COMPLETE report. I also wish people on this forum would do a little analysis themselves before posting articles or making comments. You are not alone as an expectant mother on this forum. There have been a number of expectant mothers and parents of small children on this forum. I can't even begin to imagine the stress the many unnecessary fearmongering posts and incomplete and leading reports by experts in the field have created for expecting parents and parents of young children. It would be great if people would take their audience into consideration before blindly posting articles or making statements. I'm not talking about censorship in any way. If it's valid info, ok. But, just blindly passing it on with little or no thought can be unnecessarlily harmful to many.

It would seem with issues of

It would seem with issues of MORTALITY, infant or otherwise to wait until the final report is to wait too long. This is something to be concerned about and to monitor.

Times like these, I REALLY

Times like these, I REALLY wish the Revere's over at Effect Measure hadn't gone off line. Haven't found a blog that really takes up the slack since they turned out the light.

Even if I didn't agree with their 'process over expediency' view at the time, I kind of understand why they'd take that stance. While I'm sure they'd be advocating for Japan to come clean, I'd be cheering for the Greenpeace groups to measure radiation levels and gather other data any way they could.

I miss the public health angles from public health experts who'd been in the trenches.

The sad thing is that groups

The sad thing is that groups like Greenpeace are often treated to ridicule. How dare they threaten industry with their greenie BS.

[FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]

Greenpeace deserves all the ridicule they get when they intentionally lie with statistics in order to convince people to give them money.

The statistics are skewed in favor of the authors point

Ok. I finally had time to go through the CDC infant death statistics for the 10 weeks prior to Fukushima fallout reaching the US west coast. This is for the same 8 cities that were represented in the article. And goes back 10 weeks from the week ending March 19 (the 4 weeks used in the article plus 6 additional weeks back). This matches the length of the post Fukushima period the article referenced.

The total for the 10 weeks prior to Fukushima fallout is:

10 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 129 deaths (avg.12.90 per week)

I didn't didn't verify the data for the subsequent 10 weeks. But, I'll trust the authors on that. The article states:

10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)

Which means that the infant mortality rate after Fukushima is actually 3% lower!!!

If someone else has the time to verify my findings, please do so. The numbers per week and city are copied below.

Boise ID
19-Mar 0
12-Mar 0
5-Mar 0
26-Feb 2
19-Feb 1
12-Feb 2
5-Feb 0
29-Jan 2
22-Jan 1
15-Jan 1

Seattle WA
19-Mar 2
12-Mar 2
5-Mar 1
26-Feb 3
19-Feb 4
12-Feb 3
5-Feb 1
29-Jan 3
22-Jan 2
15-Jan 2

Portland OR
19-Mar 0
12-Mar 1
5-Mar 4
26-Feb 0
19-Feb 2
12-Feb 4
5-Feb 0
29-Jan 3
22-Jan 0
15-Jan 4

Santa Cruz
19-Mar 0
12-Mar 0
5-Mar 0
26-Feb 0
19-Feb 0
12-Feb 0
5-Feb 1
29-Jan 0
22-Jan 0
15-Jan 0

Sacramento
19-Mar 2
12-Mar 2
5-Mar 1
26-Feb 2
19-Feb 6
12-Feb 1
5-Feb 4
29-Jan 4
22-Jan 3
15-Jan 1

San Francisco
19-Mar 2
12-Mar 1
5-Mar 0
26-Feb 4
19-Feb 2
12-Feb 3
5-Feb 2
29-Jan 1
22-Jan 0
15-Jan 3

San Jose
19-Mar 2
12-Mar 2
5-Mar 3
26-Feb 0
19-Feb 4
12-Feb 3
5-Feb 3
29-Jan 5
22-Jan 3
15-Jan 6

Berkeley
19-Mar 1
12-Mar 0
5-Mar 0
26-Feb 0
19-Feb 0
12-Feb 0
5-Feb 0
29-Jan 0
22-Jan 0
15-Jan 2

Total for 10 weeks before Fukushima: 129 (12.9 deaths per week)

Thank you! I figured

Thank you! I figured something like this was afoot.

The statistics are not skewed!

One thing I appreciate about your effort is that it forced me to take a look at and find the actual data.

The data Sherman and Mangano reported is accurate for the time periods they reported.

However it is pretty clear that there is simply not sufficient data to know whether there is a trend and whether, with all factors considered, there MAY be a trend related to Fukushima.

THEY raise the issue of a spike in infant deaths after what appears to be a four week lull in deaths prior to the accident.

MANY factors too complicated to delineate may account for the spike and the lull which is what makes statistics so frustrating.

BUT the fact is that the data they provided is, as you somewhat confirmed, is reliable data and for the periods they report is, in their opinion, statistically significant.

I agree that more data is necessary.

HOWEVER

The article itself is full of extremely useful information which I presume is accurate and credible and the data supports a claim of statistical significance.

I guess the meaning of statistically significance is subjective to a substantial degree BUT I believe it is important to recognize that the data they report is accurate and the interpretation of the data is also accurate in terms of number of deaths before and after the contamination reached here.

TIME will determine if the rates of infant deaths (with an analysis of the causes) show a sustained correlation to Fukushima and this is a complicated process.

What I am grateful to Mangano and Sherman for is the fact that they have begun a process which we are now collectively examining to determine accuracy and the truth.

I am also grateful that you pulled these figures (a pain in the a$$) so that I can more fully appreciate the problems of analysis with limited data.

Still, infant deaths were lower in the 4 weeks before Fukushima and increased by 35% (compared to those four weeks previosly) in the 2 1/2 months after. Is there a correlation?

We will see and only time and diligent research and analysis will tell.

Can't pull this one out of the dumpster

(Forgot to initial my earlier posts)

And yes, it is a PAIN to pull the data.

Fortunately, I kept the data in a spreadsheet. Their data on the perceived spike after Fukushima is not significant. If I take any 2 consecutive 4 week periods, I can get dramatically different results. For example, the CDC data shows the following for the 2 pre-Fukushima 4 week periods:

2/26-3/19 37
1/29-2/19 64

Additional 4 week periods:

2/12-3/5 55
1/15-2/5 57

Going by just the two 4 week periods before 3/19, the data would indicate that there was a 42% drop in infant deaths just before Fukushima. Can we attribute that to anything specific? No. Infant deaths are relatively random events. So, "spikes" and "troughs" can regularly be found in the data. It just depends on which periods you select. And if you look at the four 4 week periods above, it would indicate that the 4 week period the authors chose is actually statically lower than the other 3 periods.

The numbers can also be skewed by the cities selected. There are other cities on the west coast that can be looked at that may (and probably will) give different results.