Is Iodine-131 Killing Babies In Philly?
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
Joseph Mangano is is the executive director of the Radiation And Public Health Project in New York, which is made of up scientists and health professionals.
there has been a recent spike, in infant deaths in Philadelphia, and Mangano says radioactive levels, in our water could be to blame.
It is 2 months and double
It is 2 months and double the estimate radiation release estimates since this warning was issued.
I wonder how the French infant mortality rate stacks up?
http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/radiation-risks-fukushima-longer-negli...
The risks associated with iodine-131 contamination in Europe are no longer "negligible," according to CRIIRAD, a French research body on radioactivity. The NGO is advising pregnant women and infants against "risky behaviour," such as consuming fresh milk or vegetables with large leaves.
In response to thousands of inquiries from citizens concerned about fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Europe, CRIIRAD has compiled an information package on the risks of radioactive iodine-131 contamination in Europe.
The document, published on 7 April, advises against consuming rainwater and says vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant or breastfeeding women should avoid consuming vegetables with large leaves, fresh milk and creamy cheese.
The risks related to prolonged contamination among vulnerable groups of the population can no longer be considered "negligible" and it is now necessary to avoid "risky behaviour," CRIIRAD claimed.
However, the institute underlines that there is absolutely no need to lock oneself indoors or take iodine tablets.
CRIIRAD says its information note is not limited to the situation in France and is applicable to other European countries, as the level of air contamination is currently the same in Belgium, Germany, Italy and Switzerland, for instance.
Data for the west coast of the United States, which received the Fukushima radioactive fallout 6-10 days before France, reveals that levels of radioactive iodine-131 concentration are 8-10 times higher there, the institute says.
Has this increase in infant
Has this increase in infant deaths only occurred in formula fed babies who are drinking 30 or more ounces of the contaminated tap water a day? Or have they been happening in babies being fed premade formula or breastmilk as well?
I don't know, we need to
I don't know, we need to research this further.
Here's my conspiracy theory:
Here's my conspiracy theory: This forum is a mind-control experiment to determine how effectively you can control a population with fear.
Fear of being labeled a
Fear of being labeled a conspiracy theorist maybe.
Kathryn Higley, a health
Kathryn Higley, a health physicist at Oregon State University, said the most likely source is a nearby or upstream medical facility that treats cancer patients with Iodine-131, which can enter the water supply when patients go to the bathroom.
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04/12/feds-blame-cancer-patient-ur...
That's a lot of pee pee, with the 8 day half life.
here's the foxmyphilly news report on youtube
thank god someone posted it before it disappeared. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ycfhek_0rc8#at=97
And now a few words from
And now a few words from Alex Jones.
Awesome, great rant!Thank
Awesome, great rant!Thank you
here it is :
http://www.myweathertech.com/2011/06/17/us-orders-news-blackout-over-cri...
Wow
http://www.myweathertech.com/2011/06/17/us-orders-news-blackout-over-cri...
Better read it before it
Better read it before it disappears!
IT"S GONE! You can't read
IT"S GONE! You can't read the link anymore! WTF???
was the story removed???
that is unbelievable. moreover, facebook will not allow anyone to post the link either, saying the story is 'abusive'. WTF????
This is very strange. Why is
This is very strange. Why is it calling the link abusive?
Facebook sucks! They censor
Facebook sucks! They censor a lot of links.
Baby Death
Why can't we just test the thyroid tissue for a buildup of Iodine? I am sure that thyroid damage has more than one fingerprint that can be examined. Biology can provide facts. Statistics has just started a guessing game. Let's stop guessing.
Wow the link isn't working
Wow the link isn't working now.
Sorry, the page you requested was not found.
Please check the URL for mistakes. You can also try using the site navigation or search tool to find your content.
Click here to go to the home page.
the link was working this
the link was working this morning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycfhek_0rc8
It's still here.
He is not fearmongering, he says it is a red flag that requires more study.
i'm sure they will pull that
i'm sure they will pull that story soon. the researcher who was interviewed was writing a lot of stories about the dangers of nuclear energy just last year.
http://www.radiation.org/press/index.html
This one stands out, in particular...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein/nuke-accident-would-dwarf...
He was way ahead of the
He was way ahead of the curve on that one!
Yeah, Epstein sure was ahead
Yeah, Epstein sure was ahead of the curve.
That was a hell of an article. Hope everyone takes the time to read it.
This is the part I found particularly disturbing:
"The meltdown scenario is disturbing, but there is more to the nuclear threat. Most radioactive waste is stored, but some is routinely or accidentally released into air and water from all 104 U.S. nuclear reactors. These enter our bodies through breathing, and also the food chain."
Reactors routinely release these poisons into the environment.
Lovely
By the way, I believe Philadelphia is surrounded (100 or 150-mile radius) by more operating nuclear reactors than any other big city in the country.
Check out the other "baby
Check out the other "baby death" thread...
"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"
Also, if you dig through that thread, he had claimed the same for the west coast, and it looks like he just cherry picked the data.
This Mangano guy is having a moment in the sun.
»
Being someone with a baby on
Being someone with a baby on the way this particular exaggeration and distortion of the statistics really irks me.
My heart really goes out to you
Not because of any worries about radiation though. But, the horrors that are in your future. Such as:
Diapers
Middle of the night crying and feeding
"Terrible twos"
Constant influence of toy manufacturers
The lure of CANDY
Testing of your authority (her/him teaching YOU the word "no")
School/homework
After school activities
The usual illnesses (cold, flu, allergies, chicken pox)
Dental work
Teenage years!!! (OMG)
Dating
Drug discussions
"Adult discussion"
College
And on, and on, and on.....
Yep, my heart really goes out to you. You've got a lot ahead.
But, in the end, there's no better investment :-) Good luck!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic
Point taken - but look at
Point taken - but look at 2007 number.
There are some people out there taking advantage of the fear, and while I agree with their motives I disagree with their methods.
More Data To Compare
And by the way, I'm not the only one with the key to the data. We all can research it just as easily as they can:
http://wonder.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwrmort.asp
Here's 11 years of data for weeks 1-23:
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
2006: 183 or 7.96 per week
2005: 149 or 6.48 per week
2004: 159 or 6.91 per week
2003: 120 or 5.22 per week
2002: 123 or 5.35 per week
2001: 143 or 6.22 per week
2000: 143 or 6.22 per week
Here's 11 years of data for the same 10 weeks period used in the west coast article (and I assume for Philadelphia, Pa.):
2011: 56 or 5.6 per week
2010: 61 or 6.1 per week
2009: 65 or 6.5 per week
2008: 68 or 6.8 per week
2007: 77 or 7.7 per week
2006: 74 or 7.4 per week
2005: 79 or 7.9 per week
2004: 75 or 7.5 per week
2003: 47 or 4.7 per week
2002: 62 or 6.2 per week
2001: 64 or 6.4 per week
2000: 65 or 6.5 per week
2011 is the second lowest death rate behind 2003 for this 10 week period of the year.
Here's the 2011 per week infant death stats for the (weeks 1-23):
Week Infant Deaths
1 2
2 12
3 6
4 19
5 11
6 7
7 3
8 13
9 3
10 3
11 3
12 12 (fallout reached the US)
13 6
14 10
15 1
16 7
17 7
18 4
19 7
20 15
21 5
22 3
23 4
Correction to 2011 numbers
I was off by two rows in my spreadsheet for the 2011 10 week period. Correcting this increased the number significantly for that period (by 18 deaths). This brings the 10 week period very close to the 2004-2007 rate and 21% higher than 2010 and 14% higher than 2009.
Sorry for the error.
2011 74 7.4
2010 61 6.1
2009 65 6.5
2008 68 6.8
2007 77 7.7
2006 74 7.4
2005 79 7.9
2004 75 7.5
2003 47 4.7
2002 62 6.2
2001 64 6.4
2000 65 6.5
What are you credentials?
What are you credentials? What type of epidemiology training do you have?
There is a little more that goes into this than listing the numbers from the CDC site.
On the other thread, Mark didn't criticize the particular dates of the study, only that they didn't apply the Poisson process.
WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS??
WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS??
What credentials are required?
All I've done is pull the numbers out of the CDC site that the article was referencing. I've provided 12 years of weekly information. And provided a link to the CDC site so they can do their own research. It's up to folks to analyze that information and come up with their own conclusions. If they look at the data and believe it supports the article, fine. If they look at the article and believe the article is incorrect, that's fine too.
How can you be against more
How can you be against more study? That's all this guy is saying. At the end of the interview he says that this could be just a blip but more study is required. They also recommend pregnant women speak to their doctors about this. Do you disagree with this?
The info you sited is interesting but in the end, just throwing all this info out with no controls and no one trained to interpret it, it's no more relevant than the info you are trying so hard to invalidate. You failed to take a worldwide pandemic into account for 2009, how do we know what other important factors you have glossed over? Like comparing Jan, Feb, and March (statistically the most deadly months of the year) with April, May, and June(not so deadly historically). This is why training and credentials are necessary.
Quoted from you VB:
"Also, if you dig through that thread, he had claimed the same for the west coast, and it looks like he just cherry picked the data.
This Mangano guy is having a moment in the sun."
This quote doesn't sound like someone encouraging "folks to analyze that information and come up with their own conclusions". As far as the west coast data, I think he was referring to the other study that you have tried so hard to debunk, not exactly cherry picked data (according to Bandstra).
»
Those quotes are NOT mine
Take a closer look at who posted those comments. That data is what I posted on the other thread. The comments are not.
I'm not against more study. I'm all for it. And I didn't gloss over anything. I provided 12 years of info. Including comparisons for that same 10 week period as well as for the first 23 weeks. And I didn't do any comparisons between Jan, Feb, and March with April, May, and June in this thread.
Sorry, I confused you with
Sorry, I confused you with BC. My bad.
If you're all for more study, it sounds like you have the same opinion as Joseph Mangano.
As far as glossing over, you did fail to mention the pandemic, I am sure that there are many other similar factors that must be considered in this kind of study. The raw data is good but it really needs to be interpreted by someone trained in the science.
No Problem
It's hard to notice the quotes in BC's post.
I honestly can't phathom anyone saying that we shouldn't monitor deaths of ANY age group. And investigate any clearly demonstrated increases. That's why they are collecting that information in the first place.
I just wish they'd complete their research *before* "Killing babies" articles are published. And state their final conclusions in the article. If more study is needed, those headlines put unnecessary stress on expecting parents and parents of young children.
To some extent, I agree. But
To some extent, I agree. But I still think pregnant women should speak to their doctors and be aware that this *may* be happening.
that pretty well settles
that pretty well settles that this story is bogus. i feel duped.
Your research
If u take phillys numbers just as averages for ten week period was mangano research correct ?"Mangano looked at infant death data from the Centers For Disease Control And Prevention.
It shows an average of five infant deaths a week in the five weeks leading up to the fallout in Japan.
Then, for the 10 weeks after Japan, there was an average of 7. 5.
During the same time period, the rate of infant deaths for the whole country jumped just 2.3 percent.
So why the huge disparity?
Mangano points to significant rainfall and iodine.
Average weekly deaths for weeks 1-11 and 12-22
If I take a simple weekly average for the 11 weeks pre-Fukushima fallout and 11 weeks after Fukushima fallout reached the US, I get the following:
Weeks 1-11: 7.45 infant deaths per week
Weeks 12-22: 7 infant deaths per week
It appears the reason for the increase indicated by Mangano's numbers is due to such a short pre-Fukushima fallout period. That 5 week period (I believe it's weeks 7-11) was relatively low when compared to other weeks either before or after that 5 week period. The average during that 5 week period is 5 per week. The average for the subsequent 10 weeks is 6.73 per week. Or a 35% increase. You can see this in the list of weekly numbers I provided above. So, technicallly, yes. There was a "spike". But, only if you pick that specific 5 week period as your base. .
I'm not sure where the "up 48 percent since Iodine-131 was found in Philadelphia’s drinking water" came from. They didn't give dates in the article. It could be referring to when the EPA found it in 2005, 2007 or since Fukushima fallout arrived.
By the way, I just tried to access the original article. It looks like they pulled it. A search for "Philadelphia" + "iodine" doesn't return that article.
That was the same period
That was the same period from the other thread, which Mark said was OK.
"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:
Choose an effect to test (e.g., increase in infant mortality due to Fukushima fallout)
Find available data (e.g., CDC data)
Perform appropriate statistical analysis.
Are the data consistent with statistical fluctuations?
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).
Are the data inconsistent with statistical fluctuations (i.e., "statistically significant")?
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]"
Wow he was even addressing this to you, the master dubunker.
Read it closer
Mark was referring to "criticizing the epidemiological aspects too much, such as not ruling out other explanations". Which I was actually not criticizing in the other thread. I was saying that the authors didn't discuss it *in the article*.
The numbers I posted above are not a criticism of anything. It's just data. If we are not free to talk about numbers here, then anyone intersted in the research part of this forum might as well move on. And leave the site to those who only want to talk trash.
sorry i touched a nerve
And just for the record, name calling is a very good indicator of a weak position.
Hi again VB, I see
Hi again VB, I see what
Submitted by bandstra on Tue, 2011-06-14 00:58.
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]
Do you guys ever consider in
Do you guys ever consider in a situation like this, in a worst possible scenario, you obviously wouldn't have time to do a proper inferential study before the horses are out of the barn. What good is your study going to do then? Someone has to try, so good luck!
Exactly, I posted something
Exactly, I posted something similar in the other thread.
"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."
Still raises a red flag for
Still raises a red flag for me, it seems like you are in a big hurry to dismiss this.
Pulled
Yes the story has been pulled Retraction in order? What is going on here?
don't mean to be overly
don't mean to be overly suspicious, but it sure seems like a number of stories are being pulled.