35% uptick in infant mortality rates MAY be linked to Fukushima

[StarsInHerHair]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/physician-and-epidemiologist-say-35.html

..."Now, a physician (Janette D. Sherman, M. D.) and epidemiologist (Joseph Mangano) have penned a short but horrifying essay asking whether a spike in infant deaths in the Northwest are due to Fukushima:

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."....

http://www.counterpunch.org/sherman06102011.html

[aquart]

1. No danger there.

[cutlassmama]

2. No doubt there is some correlation. I wonder what the stats are for Japan.

[Maru Kitteh]

9. Really? How? How is there "no doubt?" What "correlation?"

[Quantess]

12. It's wise to have some doubts about this finding.

Interesting, but inconclusive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. No - the writers have cherry-picked an unrepresentative period before the disaster

and then claimed the figures from after are a 'significant' increase. They're not. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=607069&mesg_id=607113 .

If they compared the 10 weeks before and 10 weeks after, they'd see almost no change. If they compared the 10 weeks after with the equivalent 10 weeks from 2010, they'd see a decrease in 2011 (but not a significant one).

The infant mortality figures vary a lot from week to week. By taking 4 weeks from before the meltdown, they happened to get a period with few deaths in.

The more I think about it, the more I'm appalled at the behaviour of an epidemiologist in doing this. It's like the worst of the global warming deniers. He should know better, and so should the doctor who specialises in talking about cancer statistics. If their only way to make a pint is to distort figures, it throws their whole ethics, and their other publications, into doubt.

[Sherman A1]

4. Agreed

The two factors should at the very least be corresponding time frames. 4 weeks does not = 10 weeks in anyone's math.

[petronius]

7. Yes, there is much to be troubled by there. I'd also like to know why they chose those 8 cities

in particular, and on what test they're basing the claim of significance. But you're right - the flawed time period selection alone makes this analysis useless...

[kristopher]

10. I think you are way off base.

Unless you know WHY the time periods used were selected, you have absolutely no basis for the assertions you are making. Just because it violates some misapplied sense of symmetry you are insisting on, doesn't mean the work is bad. This isn't a fucking experiment you design in a lab, it is a real world in rapid motion where someone is trying to tease the truth from limited data.
IOW you don't know what the hell you are talking about in reference to the ethics of the research.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. It's up to the authors to justify their selection of time periods

and they have made no attempt to do so. No, it isn't an experiment - it's pulling data from public records, and they could have used any time period they wanted - they could have been far more even than they were, and weren't as constrained as if they had been doing a 'fucking experiment'. There is no 'rapid motion' - the figures come from government data, and are available for years. Instead, they've used 2 unequal time periods with no explanation whatsoever, that just happen to make a case for an increase in deaths. If they'd used any time period longer than 4 weeks for the 'before' stage, their claims would fall apart.

[kristopher]

13. Yes it is up to them. Have you seen the question posed to them and a response?

You really haven't thought this through at all, have you? They have a selection of cities that they've looked at, if there are known, one-off factors (such as flu season) that have escalated the mortality rate in a city, that period is not what you want to do a comparison with if you are interested in isolating the effects of Fukushima. What you want to compare is a preFukushima baseline period with no unusual spikes in mortality to a period after Fukushima which also has no spikes in mortality from other known causes (again, like flu). The closer these two periods are temporally the better since that serves to reduce potential confounds by unknown extraneous variables.

Unfortunately we can't design that and we have to try to find the best fit in the data that is available. So unless you have some evidence that implicates the authors of wrongdoing besides what you've offered, your claims are more of an ethical lapse than anything I've seen the authors offer. They ask for more research, nothing else, and time IS critical since the chances of the system randomly gathering the best data to answer the right questions is nil unless we set it up to do so.

I used to think that you were reasonably objective, however seeing your response to this after watching your silence for years in the face of routine egregious lies and distortions by nuclear proponents is compelling evidence that I'm guilty of poor judgment about you.

[Ineeda]

5. The growing loss of available health care for women and children

should be factored in to any health related analysis, IMO. Less availability of insurance due to job loss, less coverage, or higher co-pays all would impact prenatal and postnatal care. Fewer routine immunizations, for example. Also, neglected and easily treated minor illnesses would grow to be more significant, perhaps even life-threatening.

[StarsInHerHair]

6. what you said

[MilesColtrane]

8. *Scientific Facepalm*

[SidDithers]

14. In the 10 weeks before Fukushima, there were 129 infant deaths...

in the 10 weeks after Fukushima, there were 125 infant deaths.

In the same 10 week period (periods 12-21) of 2010, there were 122 infant deaths, with one of the cities not reporting any results for 4 of the 10 weeks. If we had numbers from San Jose for all 10 weeks, infant deaths totals would be closer to 134, based on their avg for the 6 weeks they did report.


The article is garbage, showing no significant differences compared to immediately before the incident, or compared to the same time period in the previous year.


Lies, damned lies and statistics. There is no 35% uptick in infant mortality. This "study" certainly wouldn't pass muster in any peer-reviewed journal.

All data used to generate totals for 10 week periods above, collected from the same source the "study" authors used, CDC Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Reports.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html

Sid

Edit: cleaned up wording

[kristopher]

16. You're engaging in pronuclear industry spin

[SidDithers]

21. I didn't mention anything about the nuclear industry...

I've criticized how the authors used data in their "study", and presented what I feel is a more complete data set that shows a different result from the authors of the "study".

I've yet to see you mention the apparent biases of the study's authors. Joseph Mangano, the alleged epidemiologist, comes from radiation.org's Sr90 Baby Teeth study, more junk science.

"You really haven't thought this through at all, have you?" Pot, meet kettle. :rofl:

Sid

[kristopher]

22. Your criticisms have no merit without more facts.

Research designed on the principles you've claimed as valid would be worthless. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. All you are doing is spinning on behalf of the nuclear industry...

[SidDithers]

23. The data speaks for itself...

There is no uptick.

Sid

[kristopher]

24. No, the data doesn't "speak for itself" if it did we would never need analysis

nor would we need to spend anytime at all in research design.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[SidDithers]

25. No mention of Mangano's bias?...

Surely, he wouldn't be misusing statistics to push an agenda, right? 'Cause that never happens in the junk-science community.

Sid

[kristopher]

26. I'm focused on YOUR pronuclear bias

It is standard for anyone critical of the nuclear industry in any way to be dismissed as biased; that canard is totally worn out. Your "criticisms" of the work that was done are ill-informed and demonstrate clearly you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

FYI: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1281874

[SidDithers]

27. Yeah, didn't think you'd want to address that...

I'm done with you.

Sid

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. +1 for actual thought

[Codeine]

15. Jesus. The most blatant example of How To Lie With Statistics I've ever fucking seen.

Not enough fucking facepalms on the entire internet for this shit.

[kristopher]

17. You don't know what you are talking about.

[Codeine]

19. Sod off. nt

[kristopher]

20. You still don't know what you are talking about.

Pronuke spin at its worst.

[robdogbucky]

28. Some info on Mangano's Tooth Study, why, what, when......

Atomic Tests in 1950s Create Need for First Tooth Studies

Studying radiation in baby teeth was an unknown technique when U.S. atmospheric nuclear weapons tests started. By the mid-1950s dozens of weapons had been detonated, including hydrogen bombs one thousand times more potent than atomic bombs. The 422 American and Soviet nuclear explosions into the atmosphere during the arms race equaled the yield of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs.

Fallout from bomb tests consisted of over 100 radioactive and cancer-causing chemicals, not found in nature. Each chemical affects the body differently. Iodine-131 attacks the thyroid gland, Cesium-137 disperses into all soft tissues, and Strontium-90 attaches to bone and teeth. The mushroom clouds in Nevada moved eastward with prevailing winds across the continent, where fallout re-entered the environment through precipitation. Scientific measurements showed that only 2 or 3 days after a Nevada explosion, fallout from the test could be present in rain or snow throughout the country, even the east coast 2500 miles away.

Soon after the Nevada tests began, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission began the first program measuring radioactivity levels in human bodies by testing Strontium-90 in bones from autopsies in the U.S. and in Europe. The AEC program showed that Sr-90 levels varied by geographic area, and were greater in infants and children. (1) The program also became infamous for its failure to request family permission before testing skeletons. (2)

Although Sr-90 was just one of the 100-plus chemicals in fallout, it quickly became the favorite for in-body testing, as its half life of 28.7 years makes it detectable for a long period after a bone or tooth is extracted from the body. But Sr-90 was also recognized as one of the most harmful components of the clouds. It was known to penetrate into the bone marrow, where red and white blood cells crucial to the immune response are formed....

http://www.counterpunch.org/mangano12222010.html


I know, I know, the gang of 4 or is it 5 yet? will say this is just more Extreme Enviroweenie Biased Claptrap. That kind of claptrap stopped atmoshperic testing.




The author and some of his references for this article:


1. Kulp JL, Eckelmann WR, Schulert AR. Strontium-90 in man. Science 1957;125(3241): 219-27.

2. Leary WE. In 1950s, U.S. Collected Human Tissue to Monitor Atomic Tests. New York Times, June 21, 1995.

3. Pecher C and Pecher J. Radio-calcium and radio-strontium metabolism in pregnant mice. In Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. New York: January-April 1941, Volume 46, p. 94.

4. Salisbury HE. Stevenson Calls for World Pact to Curb H-Bomb. New York Times, October 16, 1956.

5. Danger – Strontium 90. Newsweek, November 12, 1956, p. 88.

6. Kalckar HM. An international milk teeth radiation census. Nature 1958;4831:283-4.

7. Wyant WK. Strontium-90 in St. Louis: 50,000 Baby Teeth. The Nation, June 13, 1959, 535-7.

8. Rosenthal HL. Accumulation of environmental 90-Sr in teeth of children. Hanford Radiobiology Symposium, Richland WA, May 5-8, 1969, 163-71.

9. Moment of Tooth. Newsweek, April 25, 1960, p. 70.

10. National Research Council, Committee on Thyroid Screening. Exposure of the American People to Iodine-131 from the Nevada Bomb Tests. National Academy Press: Washington DC, 1999.

11. Eisler P. Fallout likely caused 15,000 deaths. USA Today, February 28, 2002, p. 1.

12. European Committee on Radiation Research. 2003 Recommendations of the ECRR: The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure for Radiation Protection Purposes. Green Audit: Aberystwyth, Wales, 2003.

13. Mangano JJ and Sherman JD. Elevated in vivo strontium-90 from nuclear weapons test fallout among cancer decedents: a case-control study using deciduous teeth. International Journal of Health Services 2011;41(1):137-58.

14. Mangano JJ. A short latency between radiation exposure from nuclear plants and cancer in young children. International Journal of Health Services 2006;36(1):113-35.

http://www.counterpunch.org/mangano12222010.html



Hi ho!

[SidDithers]

29. National Cancer Institute's real research...

not the psuedoscientific claptrap that is the Tooth Fairy project.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities

Sid

[robdogbucky]

30. RPHP, that horrible front group with their awfully biased agenda:

Cherry-picked here for our readers' enjoyment and education.


RPHP is a nonprofit educational and scientific organization, established by scientists and physicians dedicated to understanding the relationships between low-level, nuclear radiation and public health. Learn more or make a financial contribution.

"To document a possible radiation/cancer connection, RPHP needs only one of the baby teeth that your child has lost...So please help. Every tooth is a clue!" ~ Alec Baldwin...


...Joseph Mangano’s book Radioactive Baby Teeth: The Cancer Link describes past and current studies measuring amounts of Strontium-90 in baby teeth, and how this radioactive chemical raises the risk of childhood cancer.

The book reads like a mystery, beginning with the discovery of an old ammunition bunker where thousands of baby teeth from the 1950s are stored. It is an easy-to-read account of one of the most crucial science and health issues of the 20th century...



...The New York Times writes a story about the latest RPHP journal article on the link between atom bomb fallout and cancer.
The study used baby teeth from St. Louis "Baby Boomers" born in the 1950s. The article titled Study of Baby Teeth Sees Radiation Effects is by MATTHEW L. WALD...
Click here to read the article


See also the article by NANCY CAMBRIA at the St. Louis Post Dispatch entitled WU study on baby teeth here gets boost.
Click here to read
See below for the article itself...

Bomb Testing and Cancer


RPHP Responds to the Nuclear Meltdowns in Japan
Please Read Our Press Releases on Contamination and Health Risk

RPHP analyzed official EPA data on Japan radiation that drifted to the U.S., and found it is 20 times above normal in the air and precipitation. Levels in Idaho are about 100 times above normal. This suggests that Americans born later in 2011 will have higher rates of infant deaths, low weight births, cancer, and other conditions, which is what occurred after the Chernobyl plume drifted over the U.S. in 1986.

Click here to read the March 14 2011 press release
Click here to read the March 21 2011 press release
Click here to see the April 7 press release on Iodine levels from Japan in U.S. air and water

http://www.radiation.org/

[Obamanaut]

31. .nt