Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?

[villager]

Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?

A 35% Spike in Infant Mortality in Northwest Cities Since Meltdown

By JANETTE D. SHERMAN, MD
and JOSEPH MANGANO

U.S. babies are dying at an increased rate. While the United States spends billions on medical care, as of 2006, the US ranked 28th in the world in infant mortality, more than twice that of the lowest ranked countries. (DHHS, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics. Health United States 2010, Table 20, p. 131, February 2011.)

The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age:

4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)

This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate.

Spewing from the Fukushima reactor are radioactive isotopes including those of iodine (I-131), strontium (Sr-90) and cesium (Cs-134 and Cs-137) all of which are taken up in food and water. Iodine is concentrated in the thyroid, Sr-90 in bones and teeth and Cs-134 and Cs-137 in soft tissues, including the heart. The unborn and babies are more vulnerable because the cells are rapidly dividing and the delivered dose is proportionally larger than that delivered to an adult.

<snip>

http://counterpunch.com/sherman06102011.html

[Harmony Blue]

1. I seriously doubt it, but

it is worth investigating for the next six months for sure. I am surprised that Cs-137 is still being found, which does not bode well for the Pacific area.

[damntexdem]

2. I would guess not.

I would guess that they are the result of the inadequacy of the U.S. health coverage system combined with long-term joblessness, resulting in less prenatal care and less-immediate seeking of, or receipt of, care when complications occur.

[left coaster]

3. I think you're on to something here. nt

[QuintanarooBoy]

32. Shitty health care, indeed

[dflprincess]

4. Per an article in the business section yesterday's Minneapolis Star Tribune

the number of people seeking medical care is down for both preventative medicine and chronic conditions. The article speculated that high deductible health plans as well as the increasing number of uninsured are the reasons. While the article did not mention prenatal care, I would bet there is a growing number of women who cannot afford it. That may have more to do with an increase in infant mortality than fall out from Japan.

[Mojorabbit]

10. My husband is a family practice physician

and that is exactly what is happening. He has a 29 year practice so is pretty stable and can see a lot of people for free but other younger practices are in trouble as the amt of people coming in has dropped off dramatically.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. no wonder i am losing my hair

fuck.

:yoiks:

[meow mix]

6. fermi paradox nt

[villager]

7. I'm thinking that one doesn't rule out the other? i.e. -- poor health delivery system *and*

...unforeseen, or at least, unacknowledged, aspects of the ongoing meltdowns and radioactivity releases in Japan?

[barbtries]

8. that's a huge spike.

i hope they will be able to figure out what it is and get the rate back down.

[bhikkhu]

31. that's a clever way of manipulating data, not a spike

ask why you have 10 weeks in one sample, and 4 weeks in the other. Then ask how the three cities were chosen, and how the results compare to a historic baseline and to the national average for the same period.

If you were into cherry-picking data, you could find three NW cities with lowered death rates just as easily.

[barbtries]

34. thank you for pointing that out.

i don't know what to think anymore.

[dogmoma56]

38. maybe. you made an absolute statement, no data. its worth looking at, probably not too hard to do

one would have to look at miss carriages also. and air and rain samples for radioactivity and/or heavy metal to substantiate any claim. there are metals like uranium that don't throw a lot of ionization that are still deadly as poisons. coal use in our own country has a lot more Mercury, uranium and thorium pollution than we will probably ever get from Japan.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html :wow:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

[bemildred]

9. I would think there was not enough time for such an effect to manifest.

This is ten weeks, pregnancy takes nine months.

However, such a change deserves closer scrutiny, it might well not be a fluke.

[MineralMan]

11. Why the comparison between 4 weeks before and 10 weeks

after, I wonder? Surely the data is available for the 10 week period before the meltdown. That would be the first question I'd want answered. If stats for the four weeks were somehow lower than normal, that would skew the results. Equivalent periods would be a better measure, frankly.

I don't like the feeling of this, frankly. Let's see the 10 week numbers before the incident, not just four weeks. I'm sorry but this looks like creative data mining to me.

[villager]

12. Since they link to CDC data, the question might be better posed to them.

Though this also seemed significant:

"This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant."

[MineralMan]

13. Actually, no link in that article goes to any supporting CDC data.

The first link is to a 2010 CDC report. The second leads to an error page. If you can find the correct link, please post it and I'll go check it out.

I would have done so already, but I could not find the data that were used in writing the article.

I'm not questioning you, in any case. You just posted the article. My question is about that article. I could not locate the data they used.

[villager]

14. The stats appear to be in the table (Table IV?) with the <1 deaths

...in the overall "mortality" column in the weekly report (available through PDF) for end of May, available here:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html

[MineralMan]

16. OK. Thanks. I'll see if I can make some sense of that data.

Looks like a bit of work, and I don't have time right at the moment, since it'll mean building a spreadsheet with data pulled for those cities over several sets of data tables. Interesting, to be sure. Someone went to a great deal of effort here. I'm still puzzled by the difference in periods measured, since it appears that these figures are available on a weekly basis. Why not compare 10 weeks to 10 weeks? Maybe I'll have time over the weekend.

[MineralMan]

21. OK, now I see. They're taking the Pacific cities data.

That is available for the 10 weeks prior to the Fukushima incident and the 10 weeks after. They chose to use just four weeks and compare them to 10 weeks. That's all I needed to know. I'll do the comparison, but I think I know what I'll find. Looks like they chose the data that matched what they wanted, rather than doing a proper data analysis with matching groups to compare. Feh!

I guess the other six weeks they could have used didn't work out that well for them.

[jberryhill]

24. Once you have that dataset

You need the similar ten week periods from enough prior years to isolate seasonal variations.

If, for example, the baseline rate tends to increase in the spring every year, then that would be helpful to know.

[MineralMan]

26. Yah, I know. It's not simple at all. That's why I was so interested

in the article's use of two dissimilar data periods. I can think of just one reason to do that when the data are actually available. I'll bet you know what that reason is, too.

[Igel]

15. But the stats have assumptions in them, and need to be interpreted.

Try this fake data:

wk #

1 6
2 8
3 8
4 5
5 14
6 6
7 2
8 10
9 7
10 9

Now, week 5 is clearly an outlier. It's almost 3x greater than the number for week 4. That's "statistically significant" in that we have no reason to account for a 3x increase. On the other hand, it's just an outlier--an unlikely number, but given the variability of the data it's no worse than the "2" in week 7. But I focus on the week 4/5 contrast, not the week 5/7 contrast. You don't know squat without looking at the standard deviation.

Moreover, you assume that the data are representative. Assuming there's data for the previous 200 weeks, it might be the case that week 5's anomalously high number isn't odd at all but the others are: Then instead of crying, "There's an increase!" we have to ask, "Why the decrease?" Perhaps there's seasonal fluctuation or some other trends going on. Or perhaps the numbers weren't all reported in the right week, and that when you look at the incidents and not the dates of reports the curve's vastly smoothed. (One famous austism/vaccination study made this mistake: It listed cases by when they were reported, not when they were diagnosed, while ignoring the age of the kid. It showed an increase but if you actually re-sorted the data used by birthdate or vaccination date you got a fairly straight line with random variation.)

In other words, there's not enough information to pass the critical-thinking sniff test. The OP has a claim. The OP has to justify the claim.

[villager]

17. I'm not sure what posting admittedly "fake" data in contrast to compiled data

...has to do with the observations in the original article.

Of course, as time goes on, the salient question is whether such a spike in infant mortality continues...

[MineralMan]

18. Well, extracting all the data used in compiling that article will

take some considerable time, since it must be manually pulled from a number of weekly data sheets, then entered in a spreadsheet. Since I can't work with the original data as it is presented at that link, I'll have to manually pull the numbers and input them into a spreadsheet. Can't do that at the moment.

[villager]

19. I actually wasn't replying to you, but the poster who used "fake data" to make a point about data

Of course, I'd be more worried about the "real" "fake data" coming from the nuclear industry itself...

[jberryhill]

23. To illustrate a point

When one of the co-author's important accomplishments is being photographed with Alec Baldwin:

http://www.radiation.org

Alec Baldwin addresses RPHP annual meeting, as Executive Director Joseph Mangano listens

Then one might want to have a complete data set in order to determine whether the noted variation is or is not significant.

I'm not a statistics expert by any means, but the numbers in the OP compare a seasonal set of recent data to annual figures for other data. If there are seasonal or other variations inherent in the underlying data, then it is useful to compare apples to apples in terms of the time window for which an unusual occurrence is suggested to have correlated with the event in question.

It is unusual for scientific studies to be accompanied by a celebrity endorsement to add weight to the findings.

[jberryhill]

22. You need more than 10 weeks of data

The data in the OP compares a set of weeks to annual averages. My question is whether there is seasonal variation and/or whether seasonal variation was checked from similar periods in previous years.

[MineralMan]

25. Well, yes, but they didn't even compare periods of the same

length. The data are available for both 10 week periods, so a guy's gotta wonder why they compared two periods of different lengths. That was my original question about these stats.

Looking at these <1 age group mortality figures, in the Pacific region cities, they are not smooth data at all. In many cases, a city will show zero infant deaths one week and several another. It's impossible to draw any conclusions from such spotty data and so few examples. As you say, a much longer period would be required to smooth out the irregularity and small sample size.

I'm going to pull the data, though, just to see why they compared a 10-week period to a 4-week period. I'm pretty sure I know the answer already. There was no reason to do that, since the data are available, unless it was to get a desired result.

I hate data manipulation to produce results, but I suspect that's what we've got going on here. Advocacy sites are not good sources.

If there were actually a real 35% jump in infant mortality in a region over a statistically valid time period, we would not have to dig out the data. It would make headlines. Very few babies die in these cities in any given week. So, the data are very, very choppy and analysis is clouded by the nature of the data.

Oh, well...makes a good headline if you want to scare people, I guess....

[AndyTiedye]

20. Could Be

They say the amount of radiation that makes it here is harmless, but that is what they always say
until they cannot hide the truth any longer.

[villager]

29. That's exactly it. The "proof positive" will be if we see more of these kinds of spikes

-- and if they're sustained -- in the months/years ahead...

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Looks like unprofessional cherry-picking to me

Here are the figures I think I get for those 8 cities, for weeks 1-22 of 2011:

15
18
8
16
11
14
18
9
9
8
9
15
8
5
11
11
18
17
11
13
11
8

Amazingly, those 4 weeks they chose before March 19th are the 9+9+8+9=35. The 10 weeks after add up to 120. Of course, if they'd chosen 5 weeks before the date, they'd had to have included that inconvenient '18' which throws their claim out.

FWIW, here are the same figures for 2010:

21
11
12
13
14
15
10
10
11
16
7
17
12
15
13
14
10
9
10
15
19
9


I don't think there's any way this can be called 'statistically significant'. The figures vary a lot from one week to the next (and you'd want information on any infectious diseases - there are flu figures, but not split out by age), and they give no reason whatsoever for picking 4 weeks and 10 weeks. It looks dishonest, to me.

(On edit: a few figures for cities are 'U'='unavailable' - I interpolated a figure for those. The 9+9+8+9 figures do not include any interpolated figures.)

[villager]

28. Did you compare those figures to the other cities, as they did?

That's also statistically significant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. They just talk about the US total rising 2.3%

That's all there is about 'other cities'.

There is nothing 'statistically significant' in these figures. The point is that there is a lot of natural variation in the total for those 8 cities, from week to week, in any year.

The obvious point, just from looking at those figures, is that there was an unusual decline in deaths in the 4 weeks before March 19th - lower than the 2011 weeks before them, and lower than the equivalent 2010 figures. They take those 4 weeks, and then compare the 10 weeks after to them - but give no reason whatsoever for using 4 weeks (the 10 weeks would appear to be the limit of available figures for when they wrote the article). The post-March 19th 2011 figures are actually lower than the equivalent weeks from 2010 - 120 deaths as opposed to 134.

They've picked a period before Fukushima with an unusually low death rate (with no justification), and then claimed the later rate is unusual. It isn't. I think that's incredibly dishonest and unprofessional for an epidemiologist and a doctor.

[villager]

33. The point would be to compare mortality in northwest cities versus other cities, actually

...and for all of us to see, in the months ahead, of that current, remarked discrepancy holds...

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. But the figures for the northwest cities are highly variable anyway

You can see that the lowest weekly figure so far in 2011 (5) came about 3 weeks after the accident. That's under a quarter of the figure for the first week of 2010 (21). There is no 'current, remarked discrepancy'. Even the nationwide figure (that is, for 122 cities) has varied between 224 (3 weeks ago) and 152 (one week ago). These figures are far too variable to be able to see any pattern without several years' worth of data before and after the time you're interested in.

Here's the link at which you can look at the data: http://wonder.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwrmort.asp

[villager]

36. Yes, but what you keep avoiding is: Are they as "high" on the high ends in other cities?

Then the question is: If not, why not?

The real test will be to see how long the divergence between northwest cities, and the rest of the country, remains...

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. The figures for the NW are not 'high' after March 19th; they were 'low' for the 4 weeks before that

And no, the figures were not 'low' for the 122 cities in those 4 weeks:

NW	All Cities
16	183
19	208
9	185
18	171
11	208
16	182
19	206
11	186
9	199
8	182
9	209
---------------- March 19th
16	211
7	213
6	204
11	163
11	188
18	200
18	196
13	214
15	224
11	196
8	152

(Note my figures earlier in the thread had omitted Boise by mistake, so there's a difference of 1 or 2 in the NW weekly figures)

As you can see, there were 2 weeks before March 19th that were higher, in the NW, than any following them. The authors selected the lowest 4 week period possible before March 19th, and then claimed that figures after it show a significant increase. There is no divergence between the NW cities and the rest of the country. There was an apparent divergence in the 4 weeks before March 19th, but it's almost certainly just a chance happening - the figures clearly vary a lot from week to week, and sometimes you'll get 4 low weeks in a row.

[villager]

39. You're combining "all cities" -- which includes NW -- along with NW stats

The question remains: When NW stats are contrasted with other cities (not rolled into "all cities") what is the differential?

And the larger question will be: What will that differential look like from here on out?

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. All you have to do is subtract the first column from the second

I reckon I can leave that for you, or anyone else interested in "cities not in the NW", to do. I don't think it will show anything, but I'm not stopping you doing a few calculations and posting them.

[villager]

43. right -- the point was, you didn't do that calculation either, before posting...

n/t

[Zoeisright]

40. I was going to say no until I saw the graph of the huge increase in radiation

in that area. The statistically significant increase of deaths and the radioactive isotope increase are just too coincidental. This is the same thing that happened in many cities in the path of the Chernobyl fallout. And that is a HUGE jump.

And of course repuke insistence on individual private insurance is causing deaths; at least 45,000 Americans die every year because repukes are too greedy and mean to consider single payer.

[yurbud]

41. kick

[yurbud]

44. I emailed the authors and got A LOT more details in their reply:

My letter:

I cross-posted your Counterpunch article "Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?" to Democraticunderground.com, a progressive discussion board that gets a lot of traffic.

Several people have replied questioning the data, claiming cherry-picking, too small a sample, and so forth. One legitimate issue critics bring up is the reader's access to the data you used is difficult at best--that cdc.gov/wonder link doesn't lead to a data set but a message saying "Access to WONDER data is only available by completing and submitting a request page. Please go to a desired request page, or click "WONDER Home" above and navigate from there."

I went to the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and it took me a while to find the relevant data but it didn't have the previous data to compare in the same report.

Could reply either to me or directly to the board with the CDC data you analyzed or the variables you entered into Wonder to get that data?

The Democraticunderground discussion is at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=607576&mesg_id=607576

Will you be publishing these findings in any peer reviewed journals?

I am from the Pacific Northwest and most of my friends and family likely to have children in the future live there, so I have a personal stake in getting your article taken seriously. Whenever someone in the family has gotten cancer, I have had to wonder if it had anything to do with a lifetime of swimming in the Columbia River, most of which is downstream from the Hanford Nuclear facility.

Sincerely,

Yurbud

Their response:

From Mr. Mangano, the co-author

Begin forwarded message:

From: [e-mail]
Date: June 9, 2011 11:01:15 AM EDT
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Press release and report

Great

In a message dated 6/9/2011 10:26:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [e-mail] writes:

On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:07 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
Radiation and Public Health Project
Joseph J. Mangano, MPH, MBA, Executive Director
716 Simpson Avenue, Ocean City NJ 08226
[e-mail]
www.radiation.org
609-399-4343
Directors Robert Alvarez
Christie Brinkley
David Friedson
Karl Grossman
Judith Johnsrud PhD
Joseph Mangano
Ernest J. Sternglass, PhD
________________________________________________________________________
INFANT DEATHS SOAR 35% IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST ---
AREA HIT HARDEST BY JAPANESE NUCLEAR FALLOUT
Embargoed until 12 p.m. EST, June 9, 2011 Contact Joseph Mangano 609-399-4343

June 7, 2011 – Infant deaths rose 35% in the Pacific Northwest since mid-March, when fallout from the meltdowns at Japanese nuclear reactors reached the U.S., according to data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and featured in a new report by health researchers.

Soaring infant deaths occurred in the region where the highest levels of environmental radiation were found in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) samples, raising the possibility that there is a link between Japanese radiation and risk of infant death.

“The fetus and infant are highly susceptible to harm from radiation,” says Joseph Mangano MPH MBA. “The Fukushima meltdowns are still releasing radiation, so trends should be monitored further,” he adds. Mangano is Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a New York-based health research group. He is the author of the new report on Fukushima fallout in the U.S. and infant death trends.

The airborne radioactive plume from Japan reached the West Coast on March 17, six days after a powerful earthquake and tsunami caused meltdowns in four reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant. EPA data shows that most of the highest levels in the continental U.S. of radioactive Iodine-131 (I-131) in precipitation in late March were found in Idaho, northern California, Washington, and Oregon.

The two highest precipitation levels found by EPA were in Boise ID (390 and 242 picocuries of I-131 per liter of water, hundreds of times greater than the typical level of about 2). Along with Boise, samples from Richmond CA (near San Francisco), Portland OR, and Olympia WA made up 6 of the 10 highest measurements in the U.S. I-131 is one of over 100 radioactive chemicals found only in nuclear reactors and atomic bombs.

Infant deaths reported to the CDC in eight northwestern cities averaged 9.25 per week for the four weeks ending March 19. The average jumped to 12.50, a 35.1% increase, in the following 10 weeks. Cities include Boise ID, Portland OR, and Seattle WA, plus the northern California cities of Pasadena, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Cruz. Total U.S. infant deaths increased 2.3% during this time.


Infant deaths are published in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. They are preliminary (final figures are available in 2014), but are often similar to final data. The CDC data can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html; EPA data is at http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet_sampling_data.html#precip.

RPHP health researchers (www.radiation.org) have published 27 medical journal articles and 7 books on health hazards of radiation exposure. Their work has been covered by the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, and Fox News.




ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION IN THE UNITED STATES
FROM THE NUCLEAR MELTDOWNS AT FUKUSHIMA JAPAN
AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON INFANT MORTALITY RATES

Joseph J. Mangano MPH MBA, Radiation and Public Health Project, June 7, 2011

Purpose. This report will present and analyze data on radioactivity levels in the U.S. from the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns, and any changes in health status since this radioactivity entered the U.S. environment and diet.

Background. On March 11, 2011, a powerful earthquake and tsunami caused the Fukushima nuclear plant, with six reactors, to lose cooling water (from loss of electricity). Three reactor cores and two waste pools suffered meltdowns. Explosions caused breaches in containment buildings, and high levels of radioactivity entered the environment. The radioactive plume moved east, reaching the West Coast on March 17.

Japanese radioactivity in the U.S. is being ingested by Americans through breathing and the food chain. This phenomenon has occurred previously, such as above-ground nuclear weapons tests and the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown.

This report examines changes in environmental radiation levels in the U.S., along with changes in health status, since the arrival of the plume in March.

EPA System of Measuring Environmental Radiation. The federal government has monitored levels of environmental radioactivity since 1957, during the time of above-ground nuclear weapons testing. Originally managed by the U.S. Public Health Service, this task has been assigned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1975.

The EPA makes periodic measurements of radioactivity concentrations in air, precipitation, water, and milk. It operates a system known as RADNET, which includes 124 stations in the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Saipan, and Guam.

Historical data beginning in 1978 are available on the EPA web site, and earlier data are also available in hard copy format. After Fukushima, the EPA increased the frequency of their measurements, and on April 5, made 2011 data available in interactive format. However, on May 3 the Agency reverted to its normal schedule of quarterly measurements, claiming recent samples could detect no radioactivity.

For March and April 2011, the EPA has made available online hundreds of radioactivity measurements (Table 1). All individual readings can be accessed by visiting www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#precip.


Table 1
March-April 2011 EPA Measurements of Radioactivity

Indicator Precipitation Milk Drinking Water Air (Filter) Air (Cartridge)
Number of Sites 32 36 72 21 12

Number of Samples 157 67 153 79 150

Samples with 77 9 34 72 105
Detectable Iodine-131

The EPA made measurements of 10 radioactive chemicals only produced in atomic bomb explosions and nuclear reactor operations. The vast majority of measurements did not detect radiation, and were marked “ND” (not detectable). The one exception to this general inability to detect radiation was Iodine-131 (I-131). This chemical has a short half-life (8 days), which means it originated from a current source – most likely a nuclear reactor. It is not clear why the EPA detects I-131 more easily than other chemicals.

I-131, like all forms of radioactive iodine, attacks the thyroid gland after ingestion. It can cause cancer and other disorders of the thyroid, which plays a key role in physical and mental development, especially in the fetus and infant.

The greatest number of detectable I-131 samples are in air (cartridge method), air (filter method), and precipitation, with 105, 72, and 77, respectively. Unfortunately, the air cartridge samples cover 12 sites, only 4 in the continental U.S., limiting a national analysis. Air filter samples include 13 sites in the continental U.S., just 6 outside California and Florida. Precipitation has the greatest geographic spread of measurements and will be analyzed as a rough proxy for U.S. levels of radioactivity from Japan.

Patterns of Iodine-131 in Precipitation. Historical EPA data shows the typical level of I-131 in U.S. precipitation is about 2 picocuries of I-131 per liter of water (pCi/l). This number was determined by measurements at 9 U.S. sites on May 1-3, 1986, just before the plume from the Chernobyl accident arrived over the nation. A picocurie is a measure of radioactivity, and is one-trillionth of a curie.

After Fukushima, from March 22-25, samples of I-131 in precipitation at 12 U.S. sites had an average (median) level of 39.6 pCi/l, or about 20 times greater than normal. This figure was roughly half of 1) the peak level after Chernobyl and 2) after a large above-ground atomic bomb test by China in late September 1976 (Table 2):


Table 2
Historical EPA Measurements of I-131 in Precipitation

Event Dates No. of Sites No. of Samples Median I-131
Large Chinese 10/ 4/76- 11 26 75.5
Bomb test 11/ 2/76

Prior to Chernobyl 5/ 1/86- 7 9 2.0
(“normal”) 5/ 3/86

Chernobyl peak 5/14/86- 36 45 99.5
5/16/86

Chernobyl end 5/27/86- 18 20 25.5
5/30/86

Fukushima peak 3/22/11- 22 37 44.5
3/31/11

Concentrations of I-131 in 77 EPA measurements in precipitation with a detectable level varied greatly. Some were quite small, while others were much greater than normal, approximating or exceeding 100 times the normal concentration. Table 3 lists the 10 highest individual U.S. levels of I-131 in March and April.

Table 3
Iodine-131 in Precipitation, Highest Levels in U.S., March/April 2011

Location Date I-131 Level
* 1. Boise ID March 22 390
* 2. Boise ID March 22 242
3. Kansas City KS March 29 200
4. Salt Lake City UT March 28 190
5. Jacksonville FL March 31 150
* 6. Richmond CA March 22 138
* 7. Richmond CA March 22 138
* 8. Olympia WA March 24 125
9. Boston MA March 22 92
* 10. Portland OR March 25 86.8

* Located in the Pacific Northwest

Of the 10 highest samples, 6 were from stations in the Pacific Northwest, including northern California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. A seventh, Salt Lake City, is not technically part of the Pacific Northwest, but is relatively close to the region. Thus, it is prudent to conclude that this region received the greatest amount of fallout from Fukushima, and thus any changes in health status that might be linked to the Japanese meltdowns would occur there.

Trends in Infant Deaths in the Pacific Northwest. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has published the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) for decades. Since 1993, each edition of the MMWR includes deaths by age group for each of 122 U.S. cities with a population of over 100,000. The MMWR is available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html.

The MMWR report on deaths has certain limits. It only represents 30% of all U.S. deaths. It lists deaths by place of occurrence, while final statistics are place of residence. It also represents deaths by week a report is filed to the local health department, rather than date of death. Finally, some cities do not submit reports for all weeks.

Despite these limits, patterns of deaths reported in the MMWR are often consistent with final statistics, if a large enough group of cities and/or long enough time period are used. Final data for 2011 deaths are released in 2013 or 2014, and are only available for full years. Thus, MMWR data are helpful to make before-and-after comparisons in a year.

One age category used by the MMWR is under age one (infants). This is the most likely group to detect any link with Japanese fallout. All humans are affected by radiation exposure, but the fetus and infant are much more susceptible, because of their rapid growth and cell division. Damaging a fetal or infant cell makes it more likely that the cell with divide into more damaged cells before it can repair itself, as opposed to a slower-dividing adult cell. Damaging a cell’s DNA code, as radiation does, makes it more likely that a baby will be stillborn, die in infancy, be born prematurely/at low weight, or be born with a birth defect.

There is a precedent for radioactivity linked with higher infant deaths. On May 5, 1986, fallout from Chernobyl reached the U.S., just 9 days after the meltdown. EPA measurements of I-131 in U.S. milk showed that from mid-May to late June, average concentrations were 5-6 times greater than in the same period in 1985. Several years later, a journal article presented official CDC data showing the U.S. infant death rate rose in the four months after Chernobyl compared to a year earlier (+0.43%, compared to a decline of -4.22% for the other 8 months, an excess of 593 deaths). CDC data confirm the magnitude of this four month “bump” was unprecedented, suggesting Chernobyl fallout may have contributed to higher infant death rates in the summer of 1986 (Table 4).

Table 4
Changes in Infant Death Rates, U.S., 1985-1986

Deaths < 1 Yr Rate/1000 Births % Change
Date 1985 1986 1985 1986 In Rate
May-August 12788 12800 9.85 9.90 + 0.43
Other 8 Mos. 27242 26091 11.04 10.58 - 4.22

Note: Chernobyl fallout arrived in the U.S. environment on May 5, 1986. Excess Deaths = <0.43 – (-4.22) > x 12,800 = 593. Source: Gould JM and Sternglass EJ. Low-level radiation and mortality. CHEMTECH, Jan. 1989, 18-21.

The MMWR 2011 data show that in the four weeks immediately preceding the arrival of Japanese fallout, an average of 181.5 infant deaths were reported (in 111 cities with full reporting for each week). For the 10 weeks following, the number increased to 185.6 deaths per week, a 2.3% increase, which is not statistically significant (Table 5).

Table 5
Infant Deaths, 111 U.S. Cities, By Week, 2011

Week Ending Infant Deaths
BEFORE JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
2/26/11 173
3/ 5/11 189
3/12/11 164
3/19/11 200
Number /average 4 weeks 726 (181.5)
AFTER JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
3/26/11 182
4/ 2/11 200
4/ 9/11 187
4/16/11 154
4/23/11 167
4/30/11 190
5/ 7/11 183
5/14/11 200
5/21/11 212
5/28/11 181
Number /average 10 weeks 1856 (185.6)
% Change in Average +2.3%

Note: Includes all 122 U.S. cities in the MMWR, except for those with at least one week missing data (San Francisco, Duluth, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Columbus, Fort Worth, Paterson, New Orleans, Phoenix, Worcester, Tucson).

The MMWR includes 8 cities in the Pacific Northwest, namely Boise ID, Portland OR, Seattle WA, Berkeley CA, Sacramento CA, Santa Cruz CA, San Francisco CA, and San Jose CA. Weekly reported infant deaths in the four weeks immediately preceding the arrival of Japanese fallout and the 10 weeks following are given in Table 6.


Table 6
Infant Deaths, 8 Pacific Northwest Cities, By Week, 2011

Week Infant Deaths (Deaths < 1 Year)
Ending Boise Portland Seattle Berk Sacra S. Cruz S. Fran S. Jose Total
BEFORE JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
2/26/11 2 0 3 0 2 0 4 0 11
3/ 5/11 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 3 9
3/12/11 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 8
3/19/11 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 9

AFTER JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
3/26/11 1 2 6 1 2 0 2 2 16
4/ 2/11 0 0 3 0 1 1 --- 1 6
4/ 9/11 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 6
4/16/11 0 1 2 1 5 0 0 2 11
4/23/11 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 4 11
4/30/11 0 3 5 0 4 0 1 5 18
5/ 7/11 1 0 2 1 4 0 3 7 18
5/14/11 2 2 3 0 3 0 2 1 13
5/21/11 2 1 2 2 5 0 1 2 15
5/28/11 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 5 11

4 Weeks Before Japan Fallout Total (Average) Weekly Deaths 37 ( 9.25)
10 Weeks After Japan Fallout Total (Average) Weekly Deaths 125 (12.50)
% Change in Average +35.1% (p<.09)

Note: No data reported for San Francisco, week ending April 2

The average weekly infant deaths for the 8 cities rose sharply from 9.25 to 12.50, a jump of 35.1%. Because a large number of deaths are involved (37 and 125 in the two periods), the change approaches statistical significance at p<.09 (p<.05 is significant).

A review of MMWR data shows that the average weekly number of deaths for all other age groups in the Pacific Northwest (and the U.S.) changed little in the periods before and after the arrival of Japanese fallout.

Discussion. The EPA increased the frequency of monitoring environmental radioactivity in the U.S. after the meltdowns at Fukushima. The Agency documented higher concentrations in the U.S., especially in late March. However, most measurements of chemicals other than I-131 did not detect radioactivity, and after observing declining levels, the EPA decided to resume its normal schedule of quarterly measurements.

Despite these limitations, it appears that the Pacific Northwest received the most Japanese fallout in the U.S. While these levels are much lower than near the Fukushima plant, it is still important to review health status data for unusual patterns.

The MMWR is useful for examining very recent mortality data in cities across the nation. A comparison of infant deaths during the four weeks prior to the arrival of Japanese fallout and the 10 weeks following showed a 35.1% rise in 8 Pacific Northwest cities.

The data suggest that the following steps be taken to enhance the research:

1. Review independent measures of U.S. radioactivity to confirm EPA data are consistent

2. Review changes in environmental radioactivity and infant deaths in Japan, as high radioactivity levels and rising infant deaths would be expected

3. Continue to monitor infant deaths in the Pacific Northwest and the U.S., using MMWR

4. Request data from state/local health departments on infant health, even if incomplete

Finally, the data should be shared with the appropriate regulators, namely the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the EPA, and state radiation protection bureaus. Information suggesting that relatively low exposures to radiation from nuclear reactors are linked with infant health problems should be part of the regulatory process.


REFERENCES:

1. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. Environmental Radiation Data. Montgomery AL: Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility. Report 8, April 1977 (hard copy reports with radioactivity in precipitation after China bomb test), and Report 46, September 1986 (radioactivity in precipitation after Chernobyl).

2. Environmental Protection Agency. RadNet, formerly Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query.simple_query (radioactivity in air, precipitation, water, and milk, beginning 1978).

3. Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#precip (radioactivity in air, precipitation, water, and milk for March/April 2011).

4. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html (weekly deaths by age for 122 U.S. cities).
<letterhead - 7 Bd., June 2011 - Japan inf. mort..doc>.