Post-Fukushima Infant Deaths in the Pacific Northwest Update.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06172011.html You have to scroll down to see the article.The first part is a story about Weiner. Baby death reinvestigated and expanded with Pierre Sprey, CounterPunch's statistical consultant. To answer all the cherry picker, panic monger accusations. More cities, more weeks, disturbing results. Rick Cromack don't fear or panic. Just read and make your own decision.Or don't.
What happened to the tyranny
What happened to the tyranny rex/zenith comment? Was this comment removed? Mods? Are posters able to edit or delete posts? I know I wasn't the only one that saw that post at the top of this thread for two days. Now these new, even stranger and darker ones have replaced it. What the hell?
OMFG. This is my favorite
OMFG. This is my favorite one yet. I'm going to put this to chords and make a song. I love this forum. It's kind of like watching Donnie Darko, and doing a jigsaw puzzle and playing MYST all at the same time.
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
AND YOU ARE TRYING TO
AND YOU ARE TRYING TO SUGGEST THIS IS TIED TO FUKUSHIMA???
Prediction/Projection
Yeah,
This is a prediction, or if you prefer a projection, of likely birth outcomes for pregnancy outcomes near the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disasters.
The CIA demographics show that Honshu Island Japan births, like most regions, are slightly skewed toward males. Radiation exposure causes a more profound increase in MALE fetus deaths, than female fetal deaths. The birth ratio is expected to DROP from males/females greater than 1 to less than 1.
Because Japan did not aggressively deal with radiation contamination response in the early days; many health problems will increase. IUFD (Intra Uterine Fetal Death0 is ONE such public health problem.
Truth, wider evacuations AND anti-radiation drugs would have helped. Lies, inaction and withholding drugs will prove a deadly combination for the Japanese people. No doubt the coverups and lies will continue and increase.
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.
Are you a Doctor or do you
Are you a Doctor or do you just play one on the internet?
Difficult Subject ???
Is the topic difficult; or is public health a violation of the terms of your employment?
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
? Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked
I'm no shill. Just a troll.
I'm no shill. Just a troll.
Related Thread
Related Thread
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4550
Cromack! Are still posting
Cromack! Are still posting and promoting the "baby deaths in the northwest" thread? Enough already! Sadist.
Yeah! Screw those dead
Yeah! Screw those dead babies! What are they gonna do about it? Nothing!
Also, a person who is
Also, a person who is concerned about infant deaths is a "sadist" in your books? Interesting. I really don't have a rejoinder for that.
Dear Emperor Ming - That's
Dear Emperor Ming - That's funny...I didn't think it was baby deaths you were concerned about. Your agenda here runs deep. I seem to recall you were participating in an exercise to "check" and debunk these numbers under ONE of your pseudonyms a few months back. Hmmm, I wonder what reason someone would have to play both sides of the fence on an issue like this. Anyways, you are a fascinating poster...you have a number one fan watching now!
Can someone tell me who this
Can someone tell me who this guy's talking to? Does he, she even know?
Soil Cesium Concentrations
*
Map of Radioactive Cesium Concentration in Soil
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1270/2011/08/1270_083014-2.pdf
Corrections to the Readings of Airborne Monitoring Surveys (Soil Concentration Map) based on the Prepared Distribution Map of Radiation Doses, etc. (Map of Radioactive Cesium Concentration in Soil) by MEXT(August 30, 2011)?PDF:2750KB?
Hot Earth
Hot Earth
It is noted that the Cesium-134 concentration in the Red Zone exceeds 3,000 Bq/M?2 and that the Cesium-137 similarly exceeds the red maximum value.
Thus the cumulative value, in much of the red area exceeds 6,000 Bq/M?.
It is also noted that the inner radius, near the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant Campus is 'hatch-marked' rather than red, and indicated to be incomplete. Presumably that can be interpreted to be quite hot earth.
It would be appropriate at some point to provide public access to composite maps of the seabed radionuclide concentrations as well as the soil radionuclide concentrations.
TEPCO Low-ball Emissions
*
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
Low Ball Numbers
These numbers, while bad, seem VERY low to me. I think they are as bogus as the early USSR Chernobyl emission reports and the totally bogus TMI emission reports.
I assume that the real radionuclide emissions are MANY orders of magnitude greater than the published data indicates.
The Nuclear power industry has developed long-standing habits of lying and pseudo-scientific data diddling. Thre is no reason to think they are being honest now.
"After only 100 hours, more
"After only 100 hours, more Cesium than Chernobyl and still counting."
Do you have data for Chernobyl releases?
Infant Deaths
I heard that infants die in automobile accidents all the time.
A certain percentage of the 40,000 to 50,000 people that die each year are infants.
I can't believe anyone would be so irresponsible to be associated with, or provide a service for an industry that kills so many people.
How irresponsible can you get?
I get the benefit of driving
I get the benefit of driving somewhere in an automobile, it's also my choice to get in (with or without my infant).
What benefit do I get from Fukushima? Where was my choice to participate in this mess?
Making a really dishonest comparison? How irresponsible can you get?
Sounds desperate and pathetic.
Electricity?
What benefit do I get from Fukushima? Where was my choice to participate in this mess?
========================================
The people in Fukushima got the benefit of 40 years of electric power production.
Unless you are in Fukushima; your exposure is limited to a small fraction of what you normally get from natural background sources.
You also get the benefit that Japan didn't use coal instead of nuclear power for their needed electricity. That would have put much more radioactivity into the environment due to the burning of coal. Courtesy of scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
...Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations...
Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
You also get the benefit
You also get the benefit that Japan didn't use coal instead of nuclear power for their needed electricity. That would have put much more radioactivity into the environment due to the burning of coal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha ha, so coal and nuclear are the only choices? So wait, I also get the benefit of them not burning a lot of things to generate electricity. Rembrandts, babies, plastic, the US constitution, greenbacks, etc.
I guess I should be grateful for these meltdowns because of this dirty way to supply a small amount of electricity to Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_choice
This is Ad SPAM
The comment above is Ad SPAM, to peddle car insurance policies.
But only real comments are removed
Yup - however that is allowed to stay - this won't be - neither was my last post or the post of the chap who agreed with me! There seems to be nowhere that isn't censoring the truth - but advertising, that's ok.
Real comments are removed if
Real comments are removed if they contain obscenities. We do not filter based on content.
I have just taken care of this spam message.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
I concur
Mark, thanks for removing the Ad SPAM.
I concur,
Purely Ad SPAM and are reasonably removed. Those are the only comments that I ever routinely flag for removal.
Grossly obscene posts are removed, which I can live with.
Some sites may remove violent statements...
Perhaps a small flag that characterizes these comments:
Ad Spam
obscene
violent
Would allow readers to view what they want.
BASE LINE Tests
*
By my lights, this entire thread is a calculated Red Herring 'argument'.
Certainly, miscarriages, Inter Uterine Fetal Death (IUFD) infant mortality, ARS and organ failure rates are WAY UP on Honshu Island, Japan. Immune system compromises are another documented sequela to core meltdowns and prompt criticalities. This swath of death will generally correspond to the radiation exposures and radionlide ingestion. The Japan cancer epidemic will begin in about a decade.
It is 5,000 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi meltdowns to the USA Pacific Northwest (USPNW). Thus, the likelihood of statistically significant outbreaks of the above listed maladies, is small.
There will most certainly be a statistically significant increase in USPNW CANCER rates. This USPNW cancer epidemic will begin to occur in about 10 years (2021). The uptick will be confirmed by 2025. If the past is prologue, the USA and Canada government and nuclear industry will take a close look at cancer diagnosis rates, slightly before the uptick is expected to occur. Then the shills will sound the 'all clear', from that BASE LINE evaluation.
Using the same two 10 week periods as the original authors
I got 59 (weeks 2-11) and 53 (weeks 12-21). Again, this is 10 weeks through the week ending 3/19 and 10 weeks after. The same as the original authors.
To be honest, I'm not sure which weeks the statistical analyst used. It looks like the total for his comparison is 123 (55+78). That is just 2 shy of the total for the entire first 23 weeks of 2011 in those 4 cities. Which looks strange to me.
The article states:
"During the ten weeks before March 11 those four cities suffered 55 deaths among infants less than one year old. In the ten weeks after Fukushima 78 infants died"
I believe the original authors included the week ending 3/19 in their pre-Fukushima numbers because 3/18 was when fallout arrived in the US. So, any deaths after that could be looked at as possibly due to the fallout. I don't know why the statistical analyst would include the week ending 3/19 in his post Fukushima numvers, *if* he actually did. Again, I don't know which weeks the statistical analyst used.
As for previous years in these 4 cities, the numbers I got are as follows (using the original two 10 week periods):
2011: 59/53
2010: 45/53 (53 is the same number the statistical analyst sited)
2009: 84/62
2008: 68/76
2007: 66/79
Again, if anyone wants to put in the time to pull the numbers out of the CDC reports (it's not that hard) and verify my numbers, I would appreciate it.
CDC Mortality Tables
Correction
The paragraph above should have read:
To be honest, I'm not sure which weeks the statistical analyst used. It looks like the total for his comparison is 133 (55+78).
Which is 8 over the total (125) for the entire first 23 weeks of 2011 in those 4 cities. Which looks strange to me.
Were you able to find any
Were you able to find any combination of dates to reach 55 pre-Fukushima deaths and 78 post-Fukushima deaths, which seems to be the data the analyst is using?
I'm starting to doubt if maybe he used a different data-base? I don't know how he got those numbers, but his study was analyzing a previous article that had been accused of statistical bias, so I think it's safe to assume that he was careful while dealing with the data?
It depends
Given that he wasn't as specific as the original authors regarding the weeks he used (he said "During the ten weeks before March 11"), I'm not sure. I can say a few things about the numbers I have:
1. If I slide both 10 week periods 1 week earlier, I get 63/53.
2. If I slide both 10 week periods 1 week later, I get 59/46.
3. If I slide both 10 week periods 2 weeks earlier, I get 60/54
4. He provided the same 53 number for the latter 10 week period in 2010 that I found.
I could validate the original authors numbers. So, I felt I can't validate the numbers in this new article. But, given that he still referenced CDC data in the article, I have to assume he's using the same database.
Maybe I messed up in my copy and paste. But, I've done it several times now trying to make sure I had it right. So, if I messed up, I did so consistently.
I guess we can again chalk this up to "more data needed" :-)
I posted this below but it
I posted this below but it was getting lost in the debate. I used the data posted by VB with the number of infant deaths in the four cities the statistical consultant included in his new analysis and this is what I found.
Portland
Pre-Fukushima: 20
Post-Fukushima: 11
Seattle
Pre: 29
Post: 22
Spokane
Pre: 6
Post: 14
Tacoma
Pre: 13
Post: 3
TOTAL
Pre: 68
Post: 50
I did this with pen and paper, please, can anyone double check? I'm seeing a 26.5% decrease in infant deaths after Fukushima. Are you sure these are the data they are using? Was counterpunch making a comparison with previous years and finding the increase there? WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THESE ARTICLES?
I don't think this you even
I don't think this you even read the article
During the ten weeks before March 11 those four cities suffered 55 deaths among infants less than one year old. In the ten weeks after Fukushima 78 infants died – a 42 per cent increase and one that is statistically significant. To confirm once again that these results were not due to seasonality Sprey compared these infant deaths in the ten weeks after Fukushima to the deaths in the equivalent ten weeks a year earlier. The results were almost identical with the ten weeks before Fukushima in 2011. Within the equivalent ten weeks of 2010 53 infants died in these four cities.
"During the ten weeks before
"During the ten weeks before March 11 those four cities suffered 55 deaths among infants less than one year old. In the ten weeks after Fukushima 78 infants died – a 42 per cent increase"
That's what I don't understand, check the data. This is what I'm looking at (or trying to, I may be wrong again):
Infant deaths in those four cities 10 weeks ending in March 12 and the 10 weeks after that.
Portland
Pre-Fukushima: 22
Post-Fukushima: 9
Seattle
Pre: 23
Post: 27
Spokane
Pre: 7
Post: 11
Tacoma
Pre: 13
Post: 4
TOTAL
Pre: 65
Post: 51
I'M SEEING A DECREASE. CAN ANYONE CHECK MY NUMBERS, PLEASE? I'M AFRAID I MAY SUFFER AN EMBOLISM.
Scratch that, I'm retarded
Scratch that, I'm retarded too. I used 11 weeks until the one ending in March 19 and 11 weeks after that, instead of the 10 weeks ending in March 12 and the 10 after that, which seem to be the ones included by the statistical analyst from counterpunch.
So, let me get this
So, let me get this straight. Is this publication admitting that Pierre Sprey, CounterPunch's statistical consultant, did a basic statistical analysis and proved that the article written by Janette D. Sherman, M. D., and Joseph Mangano, epidemiologist and Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project research group, is a total fabrication?
"Sprey collated the death numbers for the ten week period before, then did the calculations comparing infant deaths for ten weeks before and ten weeks afterwards for the same eight cities. His result was a statistically insignificant difference in deaths per week before and after– an increase of infant deaths of only 2.4 per cent. To further guard against the possibility of some seasonal effect due to comparing a period earlier in the spring with one later in the spring, Sprey also compared the ten weeks after Fukishima with the identical weeks in 2010. He found exactly the same result: a 2.4 per cent increase in infant deaths over the prior year which, given 128 deaths in the ten week sample, is entirely insignificant statistically."
Nope. The original study was
Nope. The original study was the 4 weeks before and 10 weeks after. He changed the original study and added 6 more weeks before the Fukushima disaster.
Exactly, so this statistical
Exactly, so this statistical consultant compared a similar period before and after the accident and compared these data to similar dates in 2010 and proved that the supposed "Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US" claimed by Sherman and Mangano is not statistically significant?
Mangano and Sherman are supposed to be experts, health professionals, how is it even possible for the "statistical consultant" of a third-rate publication like counterpunch to be able to tear their analysis apart like he did?
Anyway, kudos to Mr. Sprey for being able to find a possible correlation. Give him Mangano's job.
Strike two
"Sprey reviewed the data and confirmed that if you accept the sample cities that Sherman and Mangano picked, and also if you accept comparing 4 weeks before the March 11 Fukushima disaster and 10 weeks afterwards, then Sherman and Mangano's calculations are valid. "
You must have missed this.
You missed it!
You must have missed this.
=========================
Evidently you missed the point of that quotation.
It's called "cherry-picking" and it is NOT statistically valid.
The data is statistical; it has variations. Sometimes it is up, and sometimes it is down. That means you can choose a time period where it is up and compare that to another selected times period when it is down and make a conclusion.
But that is INVALID in statistics. You have to be fair in your selection of data, and obviously Sherman and Mangano "cherry-picked" the data to support a preconceived conclusion.
But how can you accept that
But how can you accept that conditions, specially if you are an epidemiologist? Compare data from different time lengths, not including a comparison with the same periods during previous years? What kind of epidemiological study does not include that?
Hi VB, I just wanted
Hi VB, I just wanted to
Submitted by bandstra on Mon, 2011-06-13 22:15.
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]
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4550
*emphasis added
"It is my belief, outlined
"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."
Exactly, thanks.
*emphasis added
Pierre Sprey
Pierre Sprey disagrees.
Sprey reviewed the data and confirmed that if you accept the sample cities that Sherman and Mangano picked, and also if you accept comparing 4 weeks before the March 11 Fukushima disaster and 10 weeks afterwards, then Sherman and Mangano's calculations are valid.
Please, don't forget the
Please, don't forget the following paragraph:
"One of the CounterPunch critics pointed out that using four weeks before and ten weeks afterwards "looked like cherry-picking the data." To overcome this potential bias, Sprey collated the death numbers for the ten week period before, then did the calculations comparing infant deaths for ten weeks before and ten weeks afterwards for the same eight cities. His result was a statistically insignificant difference in deaths per week before and after– an increase of infant deaths of only 2.4 per cent. To further guard against the possibility of some seasonal effect due to comparing a period earlier in the spring with one later in the spring, Sprey also compared the ten weeks after Fukishima with the identical weeks in 2010. He found exactly the same result: a 2.4 per cent increase in infant deaths over the prior year which, given 128 deaths in the ten week sample, is entirely insignificant statistically."
And then Mr. Sprey used a different selection of cities (Portland, Seattle, Spokane and Tacoma) and did find an increase under these conditions (the numbers are included in one post on this same thread, still not reviewed). But it was Mr. Sprey the one that found that correlation, no Sherman and Mangano.
So now we are back where we
So now we are back where we started.
10 weeks before and 10 weeks after was not the first study.
"Sprey reviewed the data and confirmed that if you accept the sample cities that Sherman and Mangano picked, and also if you accept comparing 4 weeks before the March 11 Fukushima disaster and 10 weeks afterwards, then Sherman and Mangano's calculations are valid."
and this
Simply by moving the boundary line northward from Santa Cruz Sprey found that the four northernmost Pacific Northwest cities in the CDC sample – Portland, Tacoma, Seattle and Spokane – show remarkably significant results – a larger infant mortality increase than the original Sherman-Mangano results.
I'm finished with this debate.
More study needs to be done as we get the new numbers. If you argue that, I find it hard to believe that you don't have some ulterior motive in this.
Careful, you're about to be
Careful, you're about to be called a shill, a plant or a Cromack. These guys don't like it when you use logic.
Sir Edmund Shillery.
Go away if you don't have
Go away if you don't have anything to contribute.