So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
RAPIDLY INCREASING POVERTY could be the largest contributor ? Where is the TREND data ?
WHAT WAS factored in? I did read the CDC Premature Mortality page and saw nothing covering money, income or finance. Did I miss something? While I assume trending as been thoroughly examined i read nothing about that either. Strange. Was I reading the correct document ? What's the CDC URL if any that explains the complete methodology ?
The numbers in the graphic are profound but, as I wish everyone knew, statics reporting can and must be bent to a useable perspective to be meaningful. We need to question the result. Were all salient factors properly brought into the calculation? It seems that potential parallel or even synergistic factors come into play that were not mentioned.
Poverty, especially increasing poverty, is a driver of increases in mortality. Trends can indicate preexisting or convergent factors.
To my untrained I these are in any case significant numbers. These questions need an answer.
Statistically derived data is really worthless unless the variance and other parameters are reported.
There was a post here several weeks back where a couple of anti-nuclear types looked at the data before and after Fukushima. The tip off was that they considered a time period 4 weeks before and 10 weeks after; or something like that.
They just "cherry-picked" within the fluctuating data so that they had a higher rate of deaths after Fukushima than before.
If someone just gives you numbers from a statistical sample without telling you how those numbers were arrived at - then I'd be very suspicious.
In the case of the aforementioned anti-nukes, the publisher of their work, "counterpunch", if memory serves; had their own statistician do the analysis and he didn't "cherry-pick" the data. He found out that there was statistically no difference if you don't "cherry pick".
The problem is that Moret has a history of playing fast and loose with statistical data.
Remember the old adage, "Figures never lie, but liars sure can figure."
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
There is a big difference between the effects of the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II and possible spread of nuclear radiation from malfunctioning nuclear power plants, said Dr. John D. Boice, a radiation epidemiologist and scientific director of the International Epidemiology Institute.
In 1945, Americans dropped bombs in parachutes, and these detonated above the city -- not on the ground.
"The atomic bomb -- it was whole body exposure that lasted less than a second," he said. The radiation traveled through the body, similarly to how X-rays behave.
"The effects may be different, because it was such an immediate response," Boice said. "For the reactors, it's different. It's a gradual exposure over time. It might include radioactive elements such as iodine and cesium, which may be ingested."
Radioactive iodine can cause thyroid problems and cancers, and cesium can also increase cancer risk. If leaking occurs, the population could breathe or ingest contaminated foods with radioactive elements.
"These are different types of exposure -- they would involve the possibility of ingestion and staying in the body."
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-10-25 07:18.
Instead of citing some anti-nuclear activist, how about we see what esteemed scientists in the field of radiation epidemiology have to say? One of the most esteemed is Dr. John Boice. Here is his testimony to the US Congress, courtesy of the US House of Representatives:
From pages 4 and 5: The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistant[Slide 3]...
The tiny amounts of detected radioactive materials from Fukushima pose no threat to human health. They represent, at most, only a tiny fraction of what we receive each day from natural sources, such as the sun, the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the houses we live in.
Dr. Boice's statement is consistent with the results reported here by BRAWM.
There is a big difference between the effects of the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II and possible spread of nuclear radiation from malfunctioning nuclear power plants, said Dr. John D. Boice, a radiation epidemiologist and scientific director of the International Epidemiology Institute.
"For the reactors, it's different. It's a gradual exposure over time. It might include radioactive elements such as iodine and cesium, which may be ingested."
"These are different types of exposure -- they would involve the possibility of ingestion and staying in the body."
Does this mean that Dr. Boice an anti-nuclear activist?
Actually, I think you misread what Dr. Boice is saying.
Scientists have found that there is a rate-dependent character to the damaging effects of radiation - the faster you receive a given dose - the more damaging it is to the body.
Therefore, Dr. Boice is saying that the effects due to the bombs are more pronounced because the dose was received very quickly.
The dose from Fukushima is different; it is a gradual exposure, and hence scientists expect that for a given dose, Fukushima will have a lesser effect than the same dose from either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
I'm sitting next to a hot fire on a cold day, getting warm fast, I like the radiation. If I were to reach into the stove and grab a burning ember and swallow it would it be more pronounced or a lesser effect?
The problem with the analogy with heat is that is breaks down.
While the embers are outside - you are warmed by the radiation.
However, when you swallow it; you have now added a new mechanism to the picture; namely conduction
Sure that ember burns inside; but due to conduction of heat energy.
The fact that a given radiation dose is more harmful when delivered fast, as referred to by Dr. Boice, is not open for debate; it is a scientific truth.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-10-25 08:03.
What a NUT!!
Anybody that "thinks" (term used loosely) that the USA's HAARP experiments actually caused the Japanese earthquake is a certifiable LOON, in my book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuren_Moret
Moret declared on March 21, 2011 that the “Japan Earthquake" and “accidents” that occurred March 11, 2011, were deliberate acts of tectonic nuclear warfare. She claimed further that the "attack" was carried out using HAARP technology by the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Energy, and British Petroleum on behalf of London Banking interests
CDC numbers don't lie
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/09/catastrophic-effects-of-radiatio...
Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported March 13- Sept. 3, 2011, shows increasing excess deaths for nearly all regions of the US.
other contributing factors ?
posted by Red Mercury
Is it possible that...
RAPIDLY INCREASING POVERTY could be the largest contributor ? Where is the TREND data ?
WHAT WAS factored in? I did read the CDC Premature Mortality page and saw nothing covering money, income or finance. Did I miss something? While I assume trending as been thoroughly examined i read nothing about that either. Strange. Was I reading the correct document ? What's the CDC URL if any that explains the complete methodology ?
The numbers in the graphic are profound but, as I wish everyone knew, statics reporting can and must be bent to a useable perspective to be meaningful. We need to question the result. Were all salient factors properly brought into the calculation? It seems that potential parallel or even synergistic factors come into play that were not mentioned.
Poverty, especially increasing poverty, is a driver of increases in mortality. Trends can indicate preexisting or convergent factors.
To my untrained I these are in any case significant numbers. These questions need an answer.
Cherry Picking
Statistically derived data is really worthless unless the variance and other parameters are reported.
There was a post here several weeks back where a couple of anti-nuclear types looked at the data before and after Fukushima. The tip off was that they considered a time period 4 weeks before and 10 weeks after; or something like that.
They just "cherry-picked" within the fluctuating data so that they had a higher rate of deaths after Fukushima than before.
If someone just gives you numbers from a statistical sample without telling you how those numbers were arrived at - then I'd be very suspicious.
In the case of the aforementioned anti-nukes, the publisher of their work, "counterpunch", if memory serves; had their own statistician do the analysis and he didn't "cherry-pick" the data. He found out that there was statistically no difference if you don't "cherry pick".
The problem is that Moret has a history of playing fast and loose with statistical data.
Remember the old adage, "Figures never lie, but liars sure can figure."
CDC numbers don't lie
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/09/catastrophic-effects-of-radiatio...
Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported March 13- Sept. 3, 2011, shows increasing excess deaths for nearly all regions of the US.
Leuren Moret may be right.
Leuren Moret may be right.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicated 41,942 excess deaths from March 13 to November 5 in the U.S.
http://i41.tinypic.com/33ae8mh.jpg
CDC numbers don't lie
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/09/catastrophic-effects-of-radiatio...
Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported March 13- Sept. 3, 2011, shows increasing excess deaths for nearly all regions of the US.
CDC numbers don't lie
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/09/catastrophic-effects-of-radiatio...
Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported March 13- Sept. 3, 2011, shows increasing excess deaths for nearly all regions of the US.
CDC numbers don't lie
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/09/catastrophic-effects-of-radiatio...
Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported March 13- Sept. 3, 2011, shows increasing excess deaths for nearly all regions of the US.
Well CDC numbers don't lie
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/09/catastrophic-effects-of-radiatio...
Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported March 13- Sept. 3, 2011, shows increasing excess deaths for nearly all regions of the US.
Well CDC numbers don't lie
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/09/catastrophic-effects-of-radiatio...
Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported March 13- Sept. 3, 2011, shows increasing excess deaths for nearly all regions of the US.
Well CDC numbers don't lie
So to everyone calling her a loon she may well be i dont really care .remember she is also using data to make her claims .can u disprove the cdc data that's the only question .map origination below.tdm
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/09/catastrophic-effects-of-radiatio...
Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported March 13- Sept. 3, 2011, shows increasing excess deaths for nearly all regions of the US.
That isn't from the cdc. I
That isn't from the cdc. I have no idea where that is from. How can you trust a graph with no source?
There is a big difference
There is a big difference between the effects of the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II and possible spread of nuclear radiation from malfunctioning nuclear power plants, said Dr. John D. Boice, a radiation epidemiologist and scientific director of the International Epidemiology Institute.
In 1945, Americans dropped bombs in parachutes, and these detonated above the city -- not on the ground.
"The atomic bomb -- it was whole body exposure that lasted less than a second," he said. The radiation traveled through the body, similarly to how X-rays behave.
"The effects may be different, because it was such an immediate response," Boice said. "For the reactors, it's different. It's a gradual exposure over time. It might include radioactive elements such as iodine and cesium, which may be ingested."
Radioactive iodine can cause thyroid problems and cancers, and cesium can also increase cancer risk. If leaking occurs, the population could breathe or ingest contaminated foods with radioactive elements.
"These are different types of exposure -- they would involve the possibility of ingestion and staying in the body."
PULEEZZZ
Instead of citing some anti-nuclear activist, how about we see what esteemed scientists in the field of radiation epidemiology have to say? One of the most esteemed is Dr. John Boice. Here is his testimony to the US Congress, courtesy of the US House of Representatives:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/docum...
From pages 4 and 5:
The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistant[Slide 3]...
The tiny amounts of detected radioactive materials from Fukushima pose no threat to human health. They represent, at most, only a tiny fraction of what we receive each day from natural sources, such as the sun, the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the houses we live in.
Dr. Boice's statement is consistent with the results reported here by BRAWM.
known side of bread which is buttered....
Interesting links:
Secret Ties to Industry and Conflicting Interests in Cancer Research
http://www.mast-victims.org/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=1&topic...
Avoidable Tragedy Post-Chernobyl. A Critical Analysis
http://iahm.org/journal/vol_2/num_3/text/vol2n3p21.htm
In both links search for the esteemed Dr. John D. Boice.
A picture arises of a technocrat following the money. A tool. A well-trained industry lackey.
I can well understand how bought and paid for politicians would feel 'safe' having this mouthpiece working the crowd......
More of the same. Same old sh**.
Dr. Boice recently on CNN
There is a big difference between the effects of the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II and possible spread of nuclear radiation from malfunctioning nuclear power plants, said Dr. John D. Boice, a radiation epidemiologist and scientific director of the International Epidemiology Institute.
"For the reactors, it's different. It's a gradual exposure over time. It might include radioactive elements such as iodine and cesium, which may be ingested."
"These are different types of exposure -- they would involve the possibility of ingestion and staying in the body."
Does this mean that Dr. Boice an anti-nuclear activist?
No - he's a scientist
Actually, I think you misread what Dr. Boice is saying.
Scientists have found that there is a rate-dependent character to the damaging effects of radiation - the faster you receive a given dose - the more damaging it is to the body.
Therefore, Dr. Boice is saying that the effects due to the bombs are more pronounced because the dose was received very quickly.
The dose from Fukushima is different; it is a gradual exposure, and hence scientists expect that for a given dose, Fukushima will have a lesser effect than the same dose from either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
I'm sitting next to a hot
I'm sitting next to a hot fire on a cold day, getting warm fast, I like the radiation. If I were to reach into the stove and grab a burning ember and swallow it would it be more pronounced or a lesser effect?
Analogy completely breaks down
The problem with the analogy with heat is that is breaks down.
While the embers are outside - you are warmed by the radiation.
However, when you swallow it; you have now added a new mechanism to the picture; namely conduction
Sure that ember burns inside; but due to conduction of heat energy.
The fact that a given radiation dose is more harmful when delivered fast, as referred to by Dr. Boice, is not open for debate; it is a scientific truth.
What a brave Woman! You go,
What a brave Woman!
You go, girl!
What a NUT!!
What a NUT!!
Anybody that "thinks" (term used loosely) that the USA's HAARP experiments actually caused the Japanese earthquake is a certifiable LOON, in my book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuren_Moret
Moret declared on March 21, 2011 that the “Japan Earthquake" and “accidents” that occurred March 11, 2011, were deliberate acts of tectonic nuclear warfare. She claimed further that the "attack" was carried out using HAARP technology by the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Energy, and British Petroleum on behalf of London Banking interests
Agree. Moret is howling mad.
Agree. Moret is howling mad.
Unfortunately...
Anyone with any type of knowledge of science would know what Moret is saying is just plain crazy. She shouldn't have an ounce of credibility.
Unfortunately, there are still brainless morons that "think" ( term used loosely ) that she is some type of hero.
Yes.
Yes - there are too many out there that think with their politics, instead of their brains.