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

[robdogbucky]

A 35% Spike in Infant Mortality in Northwest Cities Since Meltdown
Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?
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...

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



Friday, June 10, 2011

Widen evacuation zone for children, pregnant women: Greenpeace chief

By JUN HONGO
Staff writer


The government should consider evacuating children and pregnant women from a wider area around the Fukushima No. 1 power plant because radiation levels remain high even outside the 20-km no-go zone, Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International, said Thursday in Tokyo.

Naidoo's team of radiology experts found hot spots that had a maximum hourly reading of 45 microsieverts of radiation alongside a school zone.

While the area likely had high levels of radiation as a result of the landscape or other natural conditions, Naidoo insisted the central government should conduct thorough checks and provide accurate and fast information to local residents.

"Enough lives have been lost already" due to the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, and it is not justifiable for the government to neglect the health risks of high radiation in Fukushima, he told reporters at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan...

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/rss/nn20110610a6.html?ut...




No one cares


Goodbye

[phasma ex machina]

1. Why do we the people allow greedy banksters to trash our home? nt

[valerief]

3. Their mouthpieces say Jesus and bootstraps and people fold. nt

[valerief]

2. Rich people need to get richer. That's the most important thing in the world.

We're just collateral.

[Gregorian]

4. !

I want to be skeptical, but 35% is not a small figure. Wow.

[immoderate]

6. I think the sample size could be a problem.

I can't tell you what the standard error of that might be, but I could question if it's significant.

--imm.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Yikes!

[Fly by night]

7. Question re causation: what changes have occurred in radiation-related exposure on the West Coast?

Does anyone know?

That does seem like a real spike, rather than an isolated, random cluster.

[robdogbucky]

8. Arne Gunderson responds:

Part II: Arnie Gundersen Interview: Protecting Yourself If The Situation Worsens

"...Arnie Gundersen: Well, I am in touch with some scientists now who have been monitoring the air on the West Coast and in Seattle for instance, in April, the average person in Seattle breathed in 10 hot particles a day.

Chris Martenson: What? I did not know that.

Arnie Gundersen: Well, the report takes some time to make its way into the literature. The average human being breathes about 10 meters a day of air, cubic meters of air. And the air out in the Seattle area are detecting, when they pull 10 cubic meters through them, this is in April now, so we are in the end of May so it is a better situation now. That air filter will have 10 hot particles on it. And that was before the Unit Four issue. Clearly we all can’t run south of the equator to our second homes in Rio or something like that. But it will stay north of the equator for anyone who has a Leer jet and can get out. But I guess what I am advising at that point is keep your windows closed. I would definitely wear some sort of a filter if I was outside. I certainly wouldn’t run and exercise until I was sure the plume had dissipated. This isn’t now. This is, as you were saying, this is worst case. If Unit Four were to topple, I would close my windows, turn the air conditioner on, replace the filters frequently, damp mop, put a HEPA filter in the house and try to avoid as much of the hot particles as possible. You are not going to walk out with a Geiger counter and be in a plume that is going to tell you the meter. The issue will be on the West Coast, hot particles. And the solution there is HEPA filters and avoiding them.

There is also potentially some medical issues Maggie and I have been working with a couple of doctors to look at ways to mitigate to help your body cleanse particles if you know you have been exposed to them. But that is a little bit premature to go into much more detail on that..."

http://www.chrismartenson.com/martensonreport/part-2-arnie-gundersen-interview-protecting-yourself-if-situation-worsens

[Fly by night]

9. Thanks. That is frightening. Another question:

Was there any exposure to "hot particles" on the West Coast prior to the Japanese melt-down? I would expect the answer is "no" but if you know definitively, I'd appreciate the answer. Thanks.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

10. k&r...

[ej510]

11. Did you guys not get the memo, this is all part of Gods plan.

:puke:

[SidDithers]

12. Pseudo-science statistics without the raw data...

has the rate of deaths per 1000 births changed?

Why does the article compare a 4-week period to a 10-week period?

Edit: researchers should at least compare to the same 10-week time period from 2010.

Smells fishy to me.

Sid

[robdogbucky]

13. Article's authors:

Janette D. Sherman, M. D. is the author of Life's Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer and Chemical Exposure and Disease, and is a specialist in internal medicine and toxicology. She edited the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature, written by A. V. Yablokov, V. B., Nesterenko and A. V. Nesterenko, published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009. Her primary interest is the prevention of illness through public education. She can be reached at: [e-mail] and www.janettesherman.com

Joseph Mangano is an epidemiologist, and Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project research group.



Sid Dithers' qualifications for anything = ??????????

[SidDithers]

17. Thanks for providing the raw data and justifying the irregular comparison timeframes...

Oh, wait. You didn't.

Nevermind.

Sid

[SidDithers]

18. OK, I went and did your homework for you...

for the corresponding 10 weeks of 2010 (reporting periods 12-21), there were 122 reported infant deaths in the 8 cities listed in your OP. Now, unfortunately, San Jose only reported results for 6 of the 10 weeks, and did not report any information for 4 of the weeks. If we take the average infant deaths reported for San Jose in the 6 weeks they did report (6 in period 12, 2 in period 13, 3 in period 17, 2 in period 18, 4 in period 19 and 2 in period 21, total 19, avg of 3.16 per week) and assume that avg for the 4 missing weeks, that adds 12 additional infant deaths to the 10 week block.

So, our total for the same 10 weeks in 2010 is 134 reported infant deaths. (13.4 per week)

For the 10 weeks after Fukushima in 2011 there were 125 reported infant deaths. (12.5 per week)


Therefore, I can conclude that the Fukushima radiation has caused a 7% drop in infant mortality, has actually made babies healthier, and has, in fact, saved 9 lives.


Lies, damned lies, and statistics.


All data taken from CDC Mortality and Morbidity Weekly reports.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html

Sid

[Rex]

37. The Professor strikes again!

Who knew leaking nuke plants could be GOOD FOR YOU!

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. However, Sid has now shown some figures destroying the doctor and epidemiologist's case

He's looking a lot more reliable than they are.

I did a similar analysis in E&OA last night: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=607069&mesg_id=607113

[SidDithers]

22. Thanks for the hat tip...

wish I'd seen that thread in E&OA last night. I'm glad to see that, independently, we approached our criticisms of the article in the same way.

:hi:

Sid

[kristopher]

25. That does not "destroy" the case presented.

Unless, of course, you are trying to reduce science to the equivalent of a legalistic discussion.

The use of the time immediately preceding Fukushima is arguably a more valid baseline for the comparison being conducted than would be a comparison with the previous year since the event itself is the variable we are interested in.
This is also a case where the best opportunity for collection of what could be extremely important data is fast slipping away. If we are going to err, it is irresponsible and selfish to even suggest that the error should be one favoring ignorance.

Frankly I'm very surprised at you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. The use of a different time frame before is highly suspicious

and Sid also compared the same (10 week) time frame from before with after - and it turned out there was no significant difference. There is no validity for using 4 weeks rather than 10, and, as I showed, using 4 weeks rather than just 5 made a hell of a difference (because the week 5 weeks before Fukushima had double the number of deaths from the other 4 weeks). I cannot see their choice of 4 weeks as anything other than cherry-picking.

No, this is not 'slipping away' - all the authors did was pull some data from a public database that goes back years. We will be able to do this for years to come.

Seriously, look at how the deaths from week to week vary so much; can you honestly say that using the lowest period possible as the baseline is in any way 'good science'?

I mean it when I say those 2 authors are behaving just the same as climate change deniers. We've seen how they pick the most advantageous time periods possible to come up with a phrase that makes their pre-determined case look good. Go back, and be objective, as I know you can, with that data.

[kristopher]

28. 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.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. You describe what Sid and I did - compare the same periods in 2010 and 2011

and also look at the weeks preceding their 4 week period, and what is obviously is that the 4 week period adding up to 37 deaths for the 8 cities was unusually low. Look, I'll show the opening weeks of 2010 and 2011 side by side for you:

2010	2011
21	16
11	19
12	9
13	18
14	11
15	16
10	19
10	11
11	9
16	8
7	9
        ---------- 19th March
17	16
12	7
15	6
13	11
14	11
10	18
9	18
10	13
15	15
19	11
9	8

The authors chose the 11+9+8+9 4 week period as their 'baseline' - the lowest 4 week period you could choose from either year. You could look at the 4 week period before that one, and see a 73% higher level! What we actually see is that there have been no unusual spikes in 2011. The figures vary a lot from week to week; you'd expect that for infant deaths, which are generally not predictable.

Contrary to what you claim, I've thought this through a lot more than you have - I actually went to look at the data around the period the authors picked. The 'system' is collecting the data just as it always had; it's not 'random', and can be analysed at any time. The authors do not just 'ask for more research' - they've written their article, leading with the claim that deaths are up, with no explanation of why they've selected an unusual data period from before Fukushima. They have thus generated at least 4 DU articles, and no doubt many blog entries, repeating the highly misleading title they gave it. It's dishonest propaganda.

And why are you getting personal with me? I'm pointing out severe deficiencies in the article and the authors' claims. You seem to think I should have been participating in all the threads you did, and analysing them as fully as I have this one (which, let's be frank, isn't in depth - I'm quite surprised how simple it is to tear holes in the data the authors presented) before I'm allowed to comment on this thread. You don't control the threads that I read, or the ones that I respond to.

[SidDithers]

31. The data is on your side, that's why it's getting personal ...

Good post.

Sid

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. No, you've explained nothing

You've suggested there might be some reason for the authors taking the unusual 4 week period; but you haven't been able to say what that might be, let alone what their reasons were. There was no 'research design and methods'; they pulled the data from the public source, just as Sid and I did.

I have not been dishonest in any way; I went to the data source, brought the totals to DU, and showed how strange and misleading the actions of the authors have been.

How dare you say I'm being dishonest. You know that's against the DU rules; if you continue to attack me, I'll start alerting, to keep this conversation where it should be, ie about the data, not about your opinion of me.

[kristopher]

34. You've accused the authors of ethical lapses with no evidence.

The fact that you continue to insist that blind review of the numbers alone, with no contextual understanding of what caused the numbers you are pointing to is an obvious fallacy I know you understand, yet you continue to baselessly attack them.

But just for those that do not have your insight, let's lay it out:
Your approach could easily result in no apparent increase in mortality even though there is one. Why? Because the preFukushima period wasn't screened for known events that escalated the number of deaths from things such as flu. What you would be in danger of producing would not be a comparison of Fukushima related mortality with a standard baseline of health, but a comparison of Fukushima related mortality with flu related mortality.

Given the expertise of the individuals involved it is beyond the pale that you continue to pursue your obviously flawed and biased claims.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Sid and I showed the pre-Fukushima period was unusually low

There was no unusual escalation of deaths, in any the first 22 weeks of 2010 or 2011. There was, however, a rare reduction in the 4 week period before Fukushima - and the authors selected that 4 week period, with no justification, as their 'baseline'.

'Blind review of the numbers' is the only thing the authors have done. However, they have restricted the weeks they tell us about; and the restriction looks so unusual that I think it's perfectly justified in calling these public figures out for apparent cherry-picking of data.

Tell you what, shall we try to get a public figure who often looks at how statistics are used in articles to review what they've done? I suggest either 'tamino' of the Open Mind blog, who looks at how global warming deniers report statistics; or Ben Goldacre, who writes for The Guardian on data use, especially on the subject of health. We'll ask them if the authors are justified in calling this a 'statistically significant' 35% increase.

It's the 'expertise' of the authors that appals me; if they were just some bloggers, I'd move on. But these are professionals who get quoted in places like DU. There's no way we should let them get away with this.

[kristopher]

36. Why don't you contact the authors directly and ask them?

[kristopher]

38. You are making claims you have no basis for.

There was no unusual escalation of deaths, in any the first 22 weeks of 2010 or 2011. There was, however, a rare reduction in the 4 week period before Fukushima - and the authors selected that 4 week period, with no justification, as their 'baseline'.

'Blind review of the numbers' is the only thing the authors have done. However, they have restricted the weeks they tell us about; and the restriction looks so unusual that I think it's perfectly justified in calling these public figures out for apparent cherry-picking of data....

It's the 'expertise' of the authors that appals me; if they were just some bloggers, I'd move on. But these are professionals who get quoted in places like DU. There's no way we should let them get away with this.

You have no idea how the authors selected their data and you have no idea whether the mortality numbers are escalated by variables that you would not want the postFukushima results compared to - such as the flu. I usually have a lot of respect for your criticisms, but you are wrong completely wrong on this one until you can address the reasoning behind the authors' methods with specificity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. You are still under the misapprehension that there was an escalation

There wasn't; there was a drop in deaths in the few weeks before March 19th. We compared the post-March 19th figures with the equivalent period from the previous year - and found the deaths in 2011 were less than in 2010.

[kristopher]

40. I always thought you were more astute than that...

An escalation from what? A drop from what?

No, you are the one operating under unwarranted assumptions. I've asserted nothing, neither escalated mortality nor what a proper baseline should be. That's because I recognize that I do not have the data required for such a conclusion. What I've said is that there could be events (such as the flu) unrelated to baseline mortality, (the mortality you'd see with no such one-off events).

You are insisting that there is no need to consider the fact that the numbers obviously DO include one-off events that escalate mortality (such as flu). That is completely, unequivocally wrong. We are not trying to iinvestigate whether low level radiation kills more or fewer children than the flu. We are trying to determine whether there is an indication of whether LLR increases mortality apart from events like the flu.

Seriously do you not understand basic research design? I was under the impression that you did.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Is it your contention that there was flu killing infants from Jan to May 2010, and Jan to Feb 2011

but that you know it wasn't from March 2011 onwards, in those NW cities? because that is the only way that you could claim that flu was influencing the figures so that the lower mortality rate from late March 2011 onwards, compared with late March 2010 onwards, or with Jan-Feb 2011, or with Jan-mid March 2010, could possibly have anything to do with radiation.

You are putting forward a hypothesis which requires extreme stretching, which the authors have in no way even hinted at, and which you have not bothered to do the slightest bit of work to justify.

And we do know that, for the population as a whole, there were no significant increases in the numbers of deaths from influenza or pneumonia during 2010 or 2011. That's in the figures too. Go and look for yourself.

You are putting forward a red herring.

[kristopher]

43. No, I'm explaining why your criticisms are not valid.

For the second time, I've made no assertions regarding flu or anything else. I've use "flu" as a readily comprehensible example of the type of variable that any decent study would seek to account for - something you've yet to do yourself except through your imagination. I suppose the term "red herring" came to your mind was because you were dragging one when you restructured my extremely clear words and explanation.

The next time you want to rewrite what I say, please submit it in triplicate for disapproval in 90 days.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNN0LHI]

15. The mothers are just stressed out

That is what the UN told the eastern Europeans who began dropping like flies soon after Chernobyl.

The motherscratchers.

Don

[marmar]

16. That is extremely disturbing.

nt

[liberation]

19. Repeat after me: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

Once more CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION

First off the sampling periods are different. Second, without the results from the autopsies and toxicology panels for the mothers/babies it is impossible to make such claim based on an context-free statistic. It is a very intellectually disingenuous leap which reeks of narrative rather than actual science.


Not that Fukushima is any less of a bad situation, but bad science is bad science, period.

[SidDithers]

20. +1...

I can almost understand the different sampling periods, going back further than 4 weeks gets into the heart of flu season, and that might skew the results in a way they don't want.

In fact, when I went back 6 weeks, the difference in weekly deaths was almost eliminated completely.

The four weeks the researchers used, periods 11, 10, 9 and 8 had mortality numbers of 9, 8, 8 and 11 respectively, giving us the total of 37 quoted in the OP. Period 7 had 19 deaths and period 6 had 16 deaths. Average those 6 weeks and you have 72 deaths in 6 weeks = 12 per week.


As I said above, lies, damned lies and statistics.

Sid

[progressoid]

23. +elevens!!11!!

:thumbsup:

[kristopher]

24. Work like this shouldn't be taken for more than it is.

It is a compilation of circumstances and preliminary data that indicates a need for more comprehensive data collection and analysis. The author concludes:
"Why should we care if there may be is a link between Fukushima and the death of children? Because we need to measure the actual levels of isotopes in the environment and in the bodies of people exposed to determine if the fallout is killing our most vulnerable. The research is not technically difficult – the political and economic barriers may be greater. Bandshevsky and others did it and confirmed the connection. The information is available in the Chernobyl book. (Previously cited.)

The biological findings of Chernobyl cannot be ignored: isotope incorporation will determine the future of all life on earth – animal, fish, bird, plant and human. It is crucial to know this information if we are to avoid further catastrophic damage."

[flamingdem]

30. Agree. This is the point. nt

[Obamanaut]

27. . nt

[Warren DeMontague]

41. This isn't nearly as important as a dry drunk sex addict putting his PENIS! on the INTERNET!

Honestly, I don't understand how anyone can talk about anything as inconsequential as a 3 reactor melt-through until Rep. Weiner starts working the steps.