Shameful “Study” Claims Fukushima Radiation Affected US Babies

April 10th, 2013
submit to reddit Share

What can I say.  I am mad.   I am ripping mad.  I’m disgusted.  I’ve seen a level of dishonesty and scientific misinformation so grotesque, I don’t even know what to say.

One expects that vested interests will tweak data or publish biased studies to support their own causes from time to time.  It’s dishonest and unacceptable, but it happens.  Still, sometimes the level of dishonesty is so severe it really shocks the conscious.

Such is the case with a recent “study” from the Radiation and Public Health Project.   It is so dishonest in its claims it really makes me wonder about the pathology of those who are behind it.  What is their goal?  To they, deep down, think they are serving a greater good with these lies?   Have they justified this to themselves through some rationalization that preserves their need for attention and to appear to be heros?   I’m sure a psychologist could have a field day.

Here is how it was reported in Yahoo News:

Fukushima fallout may be causing illness in American babies: Study
A new study from the Radiation and Public Health Project found that babies born in the western United States as well as other Pacific countries shortly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in March 2011 may be at greater risk for congenital hypothyroidism.

Babies born in places including Hawaii, Alaska, California, Oregon and Washington shortly after Fukushima were 28 percent more likely to suffer from the illness, according to the study, than children born in those same regions one year earlier. The illness, if untreated, can cause permanent handicaps in both the body and brain.

According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, “If untreated, congenital hypothyroidism can lead to intellectual disability and abnormal growth. In the United States and many other countries, all newborns are tested for congenital hypothyroidism. If treatment begins in the first month after birth, infants usually develop normally.”

But… how could this possibly be?

It is true that nuclear fission produces a significant quantity of iodine-131, a radioactive isotope which can cause damage to the thyroid, due to its high biological uptake and tendency to accumulate in the thyroid.   Thyroid tissue is radiation-sensitive to begin with, so in nuclear accidents, iodine-131 is one of the greatest concerns.

Of course, we are talking about the United States of America.  This is thousands of miles from Japan and any iodine-131 that might make it across the Pacific would be expected to be extremely dilute.   Not only that, but with a half-life of only eight days, the fact that it takes a minimum of a few days for atmospheric material to traverse the Pacific (and usually more than that) means that a good portion of the isotope would have decayed by the time it reached the US.

This is born out by the fact that when iodine-131 (which normally does not occur in nature) was detected in the US, after the Fukushima incident, the levels were miniscule.  Radioisotopes like iodine-131 can be detected at extremely low levels. This is done by collecting samples of precipitation, dust or air and placing them in a detector which can detect the characteristic energy levels of the gamma ray photons radioisotopes emit.  When a gamma ray of the energy associated with iodine-131 is detected, it indicates an atom of the isotope has decayed.  Since its half-life is so short, even a few hundred atoms of iodine-131 will produce detectable radiation, if they are present in a sample.

It is a testament to the precision of modern gamma spectrometers that iodine-131 could be detected at all in both the US and Europe.  Yet, although it was detected, in some cases, the levels were so low that the actual concentration could not even be reliably established.    This is not a big surprise, given that even in Tokyo, which was thousands of miles closer to Fukushima, the levels of iodine-131 only briefly exceeded what is considered the “safe” standard for infants.   It should be noted that the standard is extremely conservative.

If that is not compelling reason enough to be skeptical of claims that the iodine-131 levels in the US were high enough to cause harm to infants, it should also be noted that an entire generation of US citizens was exposed to hundreds or thousands of times more iodine-131 from atmospheric nuclear testing.   What harm this may have caused is still a matter of debate.  it likely did result in some additional cases of thyroid cancer, but it certainly did not lead to a large number of kids of the 1950′s and 1960′s with major thyroid problems.

So how could these babies possibly have been damaged by Fukishima fallout?

IT DIDN’T

Lets take a look at the actual study, which can be downloaded here.

The study starts off by citing examples of data that is either extraneous or just plain misleading.   For example, it claims that those born near certain nuclear power plants displayed higher rates of congenital hypothyroid than the general population, but it fails to show any demographic data or controls and does not provide any greater context about the variance of hypothyroid nor does it give any indication about the severity of the condition.

For example, it provides data that indicates there is a higher incidence of congenital hypothyroid in infants born in the four counties surrounding Indian Point Nuclear Power Station versus the United States average.   But what does this mean?   With no further context it’s impossible to tell.  Perhaps the rate of hypothyroid is very low in some parts of the country and that drives down the national average.   Or, perhaps an increase is associated with certain demographic factors, like living in densely populated regions versus more rural areas.  With no demographic control or context, it’s impossible to tell.  For all we know, these might be much lower than many other counties.

The study provides the following data, regarding Iodine-131 detected in the US:

A team from California State University-Long Beach measured I-131 in kelp on the California coast on April 20, 2011 just over a month after the Fukushima meltdowns. The highest levels in the dry seaweed were found in Orange County in southern California (250 times greater than before the accident), Santa Cruz in northern California (200 times greater), and Los Angeles County (60 times greater) [40]. In New Hampshire, close to the Atlantic coast, during the period March-May 2011 I-131 doubled from prior periods [41].

A national study conducted by the National Geological Survey examined concentrations of wet depositions of fission-produced isotopes in soil at sites across the US, for several radioisotopes, between March 15 and April 5, 2011. Results showed that for I-131, the highest depositions, in becquerels per cubic meter, occurred in north-west Oregon (5100), central California (1610), northern Colorado (833), coastal California (211), and western Washington (60.4). No other station recorded concentrations above 13. Similar results were observed for Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 [42]. All the cited locations are on or near the Pacific coast, with the exception of Colorado, in the western US.

It is surprising to learn that the I-131 levels were only two hundred times higher than normal. Normally, there is virtually no iodine-131 in the environment. The largest contributor is actually the iodine-131 excreted by those who have been given it for medical tests or therapy. Again, this goes to show just how astoundingly sensitive the analysis can be.

But there is another point here that can easily be missed. The level of analysis required to detect iodine-131 and quantify its concentration requires such sophisticated tests that data is not available for a very large number of samples. Only a handful of areas had samples taken for such extremely sensitive analysis. Had the levels been much higher, a simple gamma ray analyzer could have given a good measure of the iodine-131, but for such minute levels, large samples would have had to been placed for extended periods in very precise spectrometers.

This would seem to present a problem, because, obviously, you can’t quantify the effects of iodine-131 if you do not have reliable measurements.

A review of US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data measuring airborne levels of gross beta was conducted, to compare 2010 and 2011 levels. The EPA uses
air filters to measure aerosols at points close to ground level. The Agency typically does measurements about twice a week for 69 US sites. At the time of the analysis,
data were only available up to October 4, 2011, and thus results for the periods January 1 to October 4 were compared for 2010 and 2011 [46]. Beta measurements include a variety of radioisotopes, of which I-131 is a portion, meaning gross beta as a proxy for relative exposures to the thyroid gland.

The largest amounts of radioactive fallout in the US environment from Fukushima occurred in late March and all of April 2011, before declining to levels typically recorded in 2010. Thus, 2010-2011 comparisons were made for two periods. The first was March 15-April 30, and the second was the remainder of the period (January 1-
March 14 plus May 1-October 4). To identify an “exposed” population, we selected 18 EPA stations in the five Pacific/West Coast States for which at least 20 gross beta measurements were made during both 2010 and 2011. Many stations had considerably more, and thus a total of 1,043 and 1,083 measurements were used in the two years for the 18 stations.

I am absolutely floored that they would use such a method to estimate iodine-131 levels. It’s so unreliable that it is just about meaningless. Basically what they did is take the total amount of beta radiation recorded at a series of stations and presume was directly proportional to the levels of iodine-131.

Here’s how it basically works: The EPA has a number of radiation monitoring stations around the US. These stations include air samplers, which draw in air through a filter and then use radiation detectors to determine the radioactivity of the samples taken.   Some of these stations are sophisticated enough to distinguish iodine-131 and other isotopes, and they did indeed detect some iodine-131.

For whatever reason, the authors of this study decided not to use the actual iodine-131 readings at all.  Perhaps they would justify this by saying that there were too few sampling stations that could register iodine-131 or that the sampling was done too infrequently.   Instead, they used the “gross beta measurements.”

These measurements are in no way a measure of iodine-131.  They are simply a measurement of detected beta emissions.   Beta emissions come from a any number of isotopes, including many natural ones.  The level of beta radiation varies considerably depending on the atmospheric conditions and other factors.   For example, if there is a wind storm and a lot of dust is kicked up, the beta emission levels will go up.   If the barometric pressure drops and more radon escapes the earth, the beta emissions will go up.  If there is an increase in sunspots, the beta emissions will go up.

To assume that gross beta radiation is going to be proportional to iodine-131 is just absurd.

It goes on to say:

We identified a “control” group representing the remainder of the US. Thus, 31 sites were selected, representing a wide geographic diversity. These sites recorded 59 to 79 airborne beta measurements each year for the 288-day period January 1-October 4, approximately twice-weekly measurements for the entire period. In all, 2,211 and 2,057 measurements were included in each respective year for the 31 sites. The list of these 18 exposed and 31 control sites is given in Appendix 1

I’m having some major problems with this “control” group. It seems they selected sites that were not on the west coast and therefore, they presume, not as exposed to Fukushima fallout. But really? I have to wonder the logic on that, since if you are already thousands of miles from Japan, is it really fair to presume, given the already limited data, that moving a few hundred miles is going to make a huge difference in exposure?

I’d also love to know what the criteria were for selecting the 31 sites to represent the “control.” They say they were just representing wide geographic diversity. That does not sound like a rigorous control at all. They really should represent good geographic and demographic proxies for the “exposed” group.

The “average” beta for each group was calculated by dividing the arithmetic mean by the number of sites (18 or 31). Table 3 presents the changes in average beta for
exposed and control groups, for the periods of higher and lower/no exposure.

Just lumped the data from all the stations into two groups and averaged it for those groups? Seriously? Really? Are you kidding me?

With the greatest airborne gross beta increases documented on the west coast, we can assess any changes in CH incidence. All US newborns diagnosed with primary
CH born March 17-December 31, 2011 were exposed in utero to radioactive fallout from the Fukushima meltdowns. While these newborns were exposed at different phases of pregnancy, effects of exposure is elevated during the fetal period, compared to those during infancy, childhood, and adulthood.

NO! You do not know that! This is an extrapolation of an extrapolation of poor data of invalid data!

  1. The gross beta count at stations does not provide a reliable measure of iodine-131 levels.
  2. But even if it did, that would not mean that it was a good measure of exposure over a large geographic area, since there are a small number of stations.
  3. But even if it did, that would not mean it was a good measure of how much iodine-131 was actually being absorbed by pregnant women, since that would depend on everything from diet to lifestyle to the chemical form the iodine took.
  4. But even if it did, that would not be a very good measure for the effect on a fetus, since we do not have any kind of standardized development level and the authors freely admit that the pregnancies were at various stages.

If you actually wanted to measure this with any kind of reliability, the only way of doing it would be to directly measure the levels of iodine-131 exposure in the bloodstream of pregnant women and do so at established stages of the pregnancy, so you could have some meaningful data.

Basically, the study is doing this:  They’re trying to justify their position that a portion of the United States, namely the West Coast region received a very high level of iodine-131 exposure relative to the rest of the country.   They are trying to say that the rest of the country is a valid “control” and the west coast a valid experiment group for iodine-131.  They are doing this based on very limited and poor instrument data.

What they finally did was, having established that apparently the West Coastal states got more iodine-131 than the rest of the US, they simply looked at the numbers of babies born with hypothyroid based on state health department reports.

Phone calls to state newborn screening program coordinators for monthly confirmed primary CH cases for 2010 and 2011 provided data for 41 of 50 states, representing 87% of all US births.  Included in the 41 states were all five Pacific/West Coast States. Most of the other states not sharing statistical data were small states with under 10 cases per year, whose policies would not permit release of small numbers of cases due to confidentiality concerns. States reporting data are given in Appendix 2.

For births March 17 to December 31, the 2010-2011 change in confirmed CH cases in the five Pacific/West Coast States was significantly  greater than for 36 other US States (p < 0.02). These 41 states represent 87% of US births, meaning that this result likely represents the pattern for the entire nation. The largest gap between the two groups of states occurred in the period March 17 to June 30, which represents fetuses exposed to environmental radioiodine during the third trimester of pregnancy, after the thyroid gland is more fully developed than in the first two trimesters.

Once again, bear in mind that they don’t actually know any of these infants were exposed to high I-131 levels. It’s assumed based on extremely indirect and unreliable data.

Lets take a look at what they found:

So the rate of children born with hypothyroid basically held steady in the states they deemed “control” but went up in the states deemed “exposed.”

(And no, it does not matter where the mother lived during the pregnancy.  They assume that they lived in the area where the birth happened.  That may be true for most, but it’s one more assumption on top of already shaky data)

Does that mean anything? Given the data available, not really. The number is low to begin with and given the number of groups and quantity of data, it’s all but meaningless. There’s no context as to the variance of hypothyroid. Does it fluctuate much year to year? Impossible to know from the data.

And notice that the states deemed “Control” saw no increase at all and even a small decrease.   If we are to believe that this was actually caused by iodine-131, then the only explanation is that somehow the radioisotope stops completely at state borders, resulting in no increase, not even a small one, for births beyond the most western states of the US.  Somehow, it traveled thousands of miles and affected babies on the coast, but then stopped dead a couple hundred miles inland and produced no effect for the rest of the US.

The most glaring omission, however, is the number of children born and thus the actual ratio of hypothyroid. Remember, this is the total number per state. This is not the proportion of children born with hypothyroid. Therefore, if there were simply many people who moved to the West Coast in 2011, and many of them had children, the number would be expected to rise. Of course, there is also no accounting for demographic changes.

A look at demographic data provides more reason to doubt the conclusions of the study.   For example, in California, the largest state in the “exposed” group, there was a small decline in total births from 2010 to 2011, but a rise in births to mothers over the age of 30. It is established that births to older mothers have a higher rate of hypothyroid than to younger mothers.

There’s just nothing here. A minor, year to year, fluctuation in congenital hypothyroid that probably has nothing to do with iodine-131.

This study is so poor it never should have been published.


This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 at 8:19 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, Not Even Wrong, Nuclear, Obfuscation, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions

134 Responses to “Shameful “Study” Claims Fukushima Radiation Affected US Babies”

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

  1. 101
    Jason C Says:

            Chris said:

    ….ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

    Mark Z. Jacobson is professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program there. He develops ….

    Yes, yes, we all know who Mark Z. Jacobson is and many of us, including myself, have read the original paper he wrote. You aren’t surprising anyone here with anything new. Most of the commenters here became aware of the Jacobson paper as soon as it was published. The Jacobson paper is laughable in the number of mis-assumptions, lack of logistical analysis, mental acrobatics, and flat-out egregious data fudging in the most disingenuous manner. It’s not a science paper. It looks like a science paper, it reads sort of like one, but the methodology is completely ass-backwards. He started out with a premise and then shaped the data to support his “hypothesis”, much like this “study” in question for this post did. That’s not science, that’s quackery.

    Mark Z. Jacobson may be an intelligent guy but like many intelligent people, they are confused or misguided in their thinking process. That’s not always a bad thing as even mistakes create discovery. Isaac Newton practiced alchemy; that didn’t make him stupid he just wasn’t aware of what we now know in modern chemistry. But Mark Z. Jacobson doesn’t have the humility required to make “good” mistakes. It doesn’t really matter to him whether he’s “correct” or not, he’s published and he has a following and that’s all the matters to a professor who speeds around in a Tesla roadster.

    Touting his credentials is an appeal to authority fallacy – it’s my expert vs. you.

    Chris, give it up already, these guys are slaying you.


    Quote Comment
  2. 102
    Shafe Says:

            Chris said:

    The researchers in this article are from Stanford…

    George W. Bush is from Yale and Harvard. What’s your point?


    Quote Comment
  3. 103
    Chris Says:

    It’s gonna be so funny when we do end up with affordable 90-100% green energy via grid in the not too distant future. I wonder what you people will be saying then – what your new excuses will be! LOL, pathetic!!!

    I suggest you read the other 2 links on radiation I posted in my previous comment until then…


    Quote Comment
  4. 104
    James Greenidge Says:

            Chris said:

    It’s gonna be so funny when we do end up with affordable 90-100% green energy via grid in the not too distant future. I wonder what you people will be saying then – what your new excuses will be! LOL, pathetic!!!

    I suggest you read the other 2 links on radiation I posted in my previous comment until then…

    Just a final word to knucklehead. NOBODY here’s going to read anymore bogus links from you unless they’re crickets, so posting more is just masturbating yourself. Get educated, get a life.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY


    Quote Comment
  5. 105
    DV82XL Says:

            Chris said:

    It’s gonna be so funny when we do end up with affordable 90-100% green energy via grid in the not too distant future. I wonder what you people will be saying then – what your new excuses will be! LOL, pathetic!!!.

    That’s the difference between you and and a rationalist, true scientists are always ready to admit they are wrong when faced with new data. Out egos aren’t tied (or shouldn’t be) to past stands but rather to the pursuit of truth. If someone comes up with an economic and technically sound way to have a 100% renewable grid we will be among the first to applaud.

    Having said that we also expect any scheme being tabled now to meet the criteria of robustness, dependability, load capacity, deployability and reasonable cost as well as not creating secondary environmental problems greater than the systems it will replace. Unfortunately as it stands none of the so-called renewables make the grade and analysis shows they will never get close without some assumptions about technical developments that right now look out of reach.

    Meanwhile, nuclear energy has proven its worth, has a better health and safety record than combustion, a smaller ecological footprint than hydro (the only practical renewable) and is cost effective. Furthermore, proven third and fourth generation designs wait in the wings which could be deployed tomorrow can deal with all of the criticisms over waste, proliferation, and potential accidents leveled against current technology even if one thinks they are justified.

    These are the facts. It is that simple, and anyone that takes an honest and unbiased look at those fact will come to the same conclusion.


    Quote Comment
  6. 106
    Anon Says:

            Chris said:

    It’s gonna be so funny when we do end up with affordable 90-100% green energy via grid in the not too distant future. I wonder what you people will be saying then – what your new excuses will be! LOL, pathetic!!!

    Did you know that such a thing already exists in Norway and Iceland?

    Of course it isn’t going to be happening in Germany or Denmark because they don’t have enough rivers.


    Quote Comment
  7. 107
    Chris Says:

    “NOBODY here’s going to read anymore bogus links from you”. James does that inlcude updated link to Mangano’s newer work addressing certain concerns ? Like the one he sent me in that email I posted that your probably never read? http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf Did you read that pdf ?

    From what I’ve seen from you commenting on other sites, you believe nuclear energy saves lives. Well, it’s a fallacy that solar and wind and hydro, etc. need coal as a backup, therefore solar and wind would save EVEN MORE LIVES. Especially since its not prone to Fukishima like disasters.

    Jacobson’s article was probably not as in depth as it could have been, but it highlighted a few interesting facts. It also referred to other studies that have proven similar assertions like that of Vasilis Fthenakis of Brookhaven National Laboratory, Tim Lipman of the University of California, Berkeley, University of Delaware (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210133507.htm – “The authors developed a computer model to consider 28 billion combinations of renewable energy sources and storage mechanisms, each tested over four years of historical hourly weather data and electricity demands.”

    Are they all also mistaken???

    Eliminating “Existing subsidies for fossil energy, such as tax benefits for exploration and extraction…”, means solar and wind will be able to compete even more as per Jacobson.

    “Today the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as global population and living standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S. The mix of sources is similar to today’s, heavily dependent on fossil fuels. If, however, the planet were powered entirely by WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combustion, an intriguing savings would occur. Global power demand would be only 11.5 TW, and U.S. demand would be 1.8 TW. That decline occurs because, in most cases, electrification is a more efficient way to use energy. For example, only 17 to 20 percent of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle (the rest is wasted as heat), whereas 75 to 86 percent of the electricity delivered to an electric vehicle goes into motion.

    “Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS sources could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. Solar, alone, offers 6,500 TW. Of course, wind and sun out in the open seas, over high mountains and across protected regions would not be available. If we subtract these and low-wind areas not likely to be developed, we are still left with 40 to 85 TW for wind and 580 TW for solar, each far beyond future human demand. Yet currently we generate only 0.02 TW of wind power and 0.008 TW of solar. These sources hold an incredible amount of untapped potential.” – Jacobson.

    And DV82XL, yes, nuclear energy has “proven its worth” to the thousands of sick and dead it has effected – not as much as coal, but far more than wind, or solar.

    I was told in a previous comment that the current grid power is only expensive because of the renewable component of it, so we can’t compare it to home based solar. The tiny renewable components listed above is proof of the stupidity of this comment.

    James, did you read the new Mangano pdf ?


    Quote Comment
  8. 108
    Chris Says:

    PS. James, the updated Mangano study states:

    “Few aggregate data on health status are available until several years after a death or specific diagnosis. Immediately after Fukushima, the only nationwide health status data available in the United States were weekly deaths by age reported by 122 U.S. cities (about 25% to 35% of all U.S. deaths), as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the 14 weeks after the Fukushima fallout arrived in the United States, total deaths reported were 4.46 percent above the SAME PERIOD in 2010; in the 14 weeks before Fukushima, the increase from the prior year was just 2.34 percent. The gap in changes for infant deaths (+1.80% in the latter 14 weeks, –8.37% for the earlier 14 weeks) was even larger. Estimated “excess” deaths for the entire United States were projected to be 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths”

    Sounds pretty fair to me.

    James, Do you also want to ignore the cesium radiation which has a MUCH longer half life than iodine?
    Sounds like you do to me.

    For those who deny infants are more prone, Mangano states: “The human fetus and infant are especially radiosensitive, given their rapid cell growth and cell division, as well as their small size that results in a proportionately larger dose.” and also “Of special interest to any analysis of potential health risks of environmental toxins are the fetus and infant, which are at greater risk than older children or adults. Their
    immune systems are immature and less likely to fight off disease; their cells are dividing very rapidly and are less likely than a damaged adult cell to repair before mitosis.”


    Quote Comment
  9. 109
    Chris Says:

    …That’s why radiation and chemo are used in fast growing cancers, rapidly deviding, growing baby cells, get it yet?


    Quote Comment
  10. 110
    DV82XL Says:

    Pathetic, just pathetic


    Quote Comment
  11. 111
    Jason C Says:

            Chris said:

    Sounds pretty fair to me.

    ….

    And that is the pinpoint of your gullibility, Chris. Your baloney detector hasn’t matured past the 4th grade.


    Quote Comment
  12. 112
    Chris Says:

    I was trying to point out that Mangano’s new study compares the 14 weeks after the Fukushima to the SAME PERIOD in 2010, unlike before when it was compared to a shorter period before the disaster which was unfair. Sorry if you didn’t get that.

    And no DV82XL, I was NOT saying radiation and chemo is used on fast growing baby cells, I was trying to point out the similar growth rates of cancer cells and fast growing baby cells. An issue people here like to denounce without any proof.

    Sorry you didn’t get what I was saying, maybe next time I will spell it out more clearly for you

    ‘Pathetic’ is misquoting researchers like Dr. Mark Pagel on Bicarbonate of soda

    ‘Pathetic’ is saying you need a PhD to do research, but anyone can discredit that researchers research, if they are self taught and have done their homework properly (as you claim with “Dr” Buzzo on this site).
    I agree with this latter comment even though it pretty much contradicts the first pathetic comment about a PhD. (It is commonplace for non-PhD researchers to do research in the mainstream scientific community).

    ‘Pathetic’ is hurling insults without taking apart an arguement piece by piece and ignoring huge sections of people’s posts, or even entire comments and links to countless studies confirming similiar results which also get ‘discredited’ with remarks like “mis-assumptions, lack of logistical analysis, mental acrobatics, and flat-out egregious data fudging” without any proof thereof.

    ‘Pathetic’ is being unwilling, unable, or too scared to contact a researcher personally to put your list of complaints on their study to him/her and ask for comment on them

    ‘Pathetic’ is DV82XL, et al.


    Quote Comment
  13. 113
    Chris (correction to above) Says:

    …Correction: A fact, linked to, “An issue people here like to denounce without any proof.” (than infants are far more sensitive to radiation)


    Quote Comment
  14. 114
    Shafe Says:

            Jason C said:

    And that is the pinpoint of your gullibility, Chris. Your baloney detector hasn’t matured past the 4th grade.

    Gullible and particularly dummdreist.


    Quote Comment
  15. 115
    Alexey Goldin Says:

    Chris, let’s have a deal. It looks like the subject is important for you.

    Why do not we cooperate?

    You collect me the data Sherman and Mangano used, I repeat my analysis (I am quite busy, but I can find couple of nights when fires at the job are extinguished and kids stuff is taken care of). As I explained my analysis in tiniest details, you will be able to do repeat it without my intervention and come to your own conclusion.

    I promise to put results on the web no matter what conclusions I come to.

    Deal?

    > if they are self taught and have done their homework properly

    Will you do your homework? I promise I’ll do mine.


    Quote Comment
  16. 116
    Chris Says:

    You obviously have a far better understanding of statistics and statistical software than me, so I suggest that you rather repeat the analasis of their new study by consulting it from the link I posted and by consulting the authors on any further info you may need from them, I would just be an unecessary third wheel in the process.

    Then email your concerns to them in bullet form ask ask them to address each concern individually.
    That is the best way to handle it if your conclusions differ from theirs.
    Grill them as hard as you can, but this time present it to them and give them a fair chance to rerspond as they are more qualified to respond to criticisms of their own study than I am.

    That would be the fair way to do it.

    Shafe, you really like wasting our time with nauseating lists of adjectives and nothing much else.


    Quote Comment
  17. 117
    Shafe Says:

            Chris said:

    Shafe, you really like wasting our time with nauseating lists of adjectives and nothing much else.

    Cry much?


    Quote Comment
  18. 118
    Alexey Goldin Says:

    > I would just be an unecessary third wheel in the process.

    You would play a very valuable role — donating non-negligible work time for finding and organizing the raw data used in analysis. You would also get insight in what data is available, what is needed, and how they are analyzed. I do not have time for it, but from my close look at their previous work I expect a pattern of excluding data that do not fit, using inappropriate statistical methods, etc. Most importantly, I do not have time for it (and this is why such sloppy work often remains unchallenged —- you can not make career out of proving sloppiness of the work everyone with basic understanding of scientific process understands to be sloppy, while Sherman and Mangano use this pseudo-publication mostly to advertise themselves in non-scientific, often anti-science circles).

    Hey, if you are ready to spend ***A LOT OF TIME***, we could make it a full-blown article and publish in a peer-reviewed epidemiological magazine (with you as a coauthor, if you spend enough effort). But I should warn you — this takes much more effort then analyzing data, going through long editorial process is exhausting.

    So if you are interested, let’s work together. I need help locating and organizing raw data, I do not have time to do it alone.


    Quote Comment
  19. 119
    DV82XL Says:

    You won’t get a better offer than the one Alexey is offering you Chris, I would jump on it.

    Meanwhile may I suggest that you take your antinuclear views over to Atomic Insights a forum that welcomes posters such as yourself. There you will find those willing to debate you seriously, something you will never find here.


    Quote Comment
  20. 120
    Chris Says:

    DV82XL I was addressing Alexey on this one, not you.
    You still need to answer for everything I wrote to you in my last few posts.

    I also don’t have a “lot of time”. You have done it before Alexey, I sure you will find time to do it again in the near future without my help.

    In the meantime you can do as I suggested and email the authors with your existing list of bulleted complaints on the methods of their previous study. Mangano has already seen that link to your analysis on that website. now send him the short bulleted list and ask him to reply to each concern. That shouldn’t take you that long and I am sure he will reply (as he did – see above – when I emailed him the link to your analysis.)

    By the way, their newer study I referred to was published in the International Journal of Health Services, Volume 42, Number 1, Pages 47–64, 2012. But I am sure you will probably try to denounce that journal for some or other reason as well.

    It would have been fair of you to also indicate that Mangano makes it clear in all these studies that a lot of the data is preliminary and that there is a general shortage of data in some places and therefore it may may be premmature to draw definite conclusions.

    As I said, give them a decent chance to defend their “sloppyness” against a short list of your complaints and post their reply here. That shouldn’t take you too long. (You can even copy and paste from this website into your email.) I was mainly interested in their response to your analysis on the link you posted, so did not send them detailed objections to some of their methodologies.


    Quote Comment
  21. 121
    Alexey Goldin Says:

    > Mangano makes it clear in all these studies that a lot of the data is preliminary

    Yes, this is an excellent tactic. “Well, the data were preliminary, but we still were screaming “fire!” in crowded theater”. Just, because, you know, I thought there may be fire, even if there is no evidence. But my preliminary data say there may be fire, so we’ll scream.”

    I predict there will be no article using any data but “preliminary”. “Preliminary” is enough for FUD, but provides an excellent cop-out.

    > email the authors with your existing list of bulleted complaints on the methods of their previous study.

    Pointless. Bullet points is their preferred way of communication, they will answer with other bullet points with something about “preliminary, incomplete data tentatively indicating that we might be right”.

    I am not good with bullet points, I am good with raw data and statistical analysis.

    Chris:

    > ‘Pathetic’ is saying you need a PhD to do research, but anyone can discredit that researchers research, if they are self taught and have done their homework properly

    Chris obviously is not interested in doing his homework, properly or not properly.

    I am both PhD and done my homework on this subject once and ready to do it again. The offer still stands if someone but Chris will help me with finding and organizing raw data Sherman and Mangano used.


    Quote Comment
  22. 122
    BMS Says:

            Chris said:

    By the way, their newer study I referred to was published in the International Journal of Health Services, Volume 42, Number 1, Pages 47–64, 2012. But I am sure you will probably try to denounce that journal for some or other reason as well.

    Chris – Here’s a good rule of thumb. Whenever a journal’s name begins with “The International Journal of …” 99 times out of 100, you can safely bet it is a crap journal.

    Most of these journals are put out by predatory publishers, serving as little more than an income stream for the publisher and a vanity press for “scholarly” authors. Even the journals that are somewhat legitimate — and IJHS has been around longer than the recent trend in predatory publishing — are still questionable. The “international” in the name implies that it solicits articles from the less prestigious schools in the world, often in Third-World countries, where the quality of scholarship is not quite as good. After all, if one has done first-class work, why would one want to publish it in a scholarly ghetto such as an “international journal” instead of a more recognized journal?

    The IJHS has an impact factor of only 1.21, which indicates it is not widely read and cited. The editor of this rather obscure journal, judging by his publication list, is nothing short of a radical left-wing activist. Thus, it is not surprising that Mangano and Sherman’s work gets favorable reviews there (this article was probably “reviewed” by a couple of rabid anti-nukes), and it’s no wonder that they prefer and continue to publish in this journal.

    Most telling, however, is that the website for this journal is proud — extremely proud — that one of its articles (a Mangano/Sherman special, no less) was cited, not in Science, Nature, The Lancet, or any of the other top-tier science journals, but by an article in the New York Times.

    That pretty much tells you what this journal is all about.


    Quote Comment
  23. 123
    Chris Says:

    Well I haven’t paged through one of these “3rd class” journals myself, but judging by their methods of raising revenue through donations I doubt that they also raise it through paid advertising from giant corporates, like the mainstream journals like the ones you mention, do. That in itself limits bias to a large extent, although it would be better to raise revenue solely through thousands of smallish paid subscriptions from every reader, rich and poor.

    Alexey, if they “answer with other bullet points with something about “preliminary, incomplete data tentatively indicating that we might be right”, THEN HAMMER THEM ABOUT IT AND DON’T LET THEM OFF THE HOOK. You don’t seem to mind hammering them on here.

    Of course bulleted points are not always enough, but if they disagree with, or ask you to prove one of them, then you can always go into more detail. I don’t think they were using preliminary data as a way out, they were just being honest about using it and using whatever data they had at the time, which is all you can do until more becomes available.


    Quote Comment
  24. 124
    Chris Says:

    I’m sure if you email the authors they will provide you with all the ‘raw data’ you need for when you have time.


    Quote Comment
  25. 125
    Alexey Goldin Says:

            Chris said:

    I’m sure if you email the authors they will provide you with all the ‘raw data’ you need for when you have time.

    Yes, but this is the problem. Their data were cherry picked. I need the whole picture.

    > THEN HAMMER THEM ABOUT IT AND DON’T LET THEM OFF THE HOOK.

    They were already hammered by Nature and WHO: http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686

    > “It doesn’t seem to me that it’s possible to do an epidemiological study that will see an increased risk.”

    This is in Fukushima province, not in USA.

    This is much more solid hammering then I can hope to achieve.

    They do not care. As long as they publish something “scientifically looking” with tables and mentioning p-values, and someone who does not understand how science is done will believe them, they are happy.

    This stuff sort of looking like science if you squint hard enough, but is not science.

    A bit like this:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tUVYxbC2vvw/S8zB18d6FHI/AAAAAAAAAAc/YzhnmKh-jEY/s320/cargo+cult+plane.jpg

    looks like an airplane, but is not going to fly.

    (Trust me, I am a pilot).


    Quote Comment
  26. 126
    DV82XL Says:

            Chris said:

    I doubt that they also raise it through paid advertising from giant corporates, like the mainstream journals like the ones you mention, do. That in itself limits bias to a large extent, although it would be better to raise revenue solely through thousands of smallish paid subscriptions from every reader, rich and poor.

    Actually the major mainstream scientific journals do not sell advertising at all and are supported by subscriptions – however they are not ‘smallish’ by any means, which is why they can generally only large institutions can afford them.


    Quote Comment
  27. 127
    Depleted Cranium » Blog Archive » This Month In Radiophobia Says:

    [...] The Canadian – Fukushima radiation affects West Coast new child births Yes, it’s the same shameful paper that was published some time ago and which this page dealt with b… It continues to show up in news outlets. This story ran on May 7. It’s just the gift that [...]


    Quote Comment
  28. 128
    Laura Says:

    It would be stupid to think that it is not going to affect us here in the US. Just cause the study is not to your standards does not mean that the information is false. As a doctor I see so many more young patients getting cancer. I am sure we are lied to on a daily basis as to all the radiation and toxic waste in our environment. And it is naive to think that the media and the studies are not heavily biased by industry and our own government. Just tired of the bull****. The question should be posed as to the possible consequences to our children. Screw all your logistic analysis and formalities.


    Quote Comment
  29. 129
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Laura said:

    It would be stupid to think that it is not going to affect us here in the US.

    No. That’s just how it is. We have background radiation. This is a drop in the ocean.

            Laura said:

    As a doctor I see so many more young patients getting cancer.

    Look, we both know you’re not a doctor. If you’re going to make something up, try to be a tiny bit more credible.

            Laura said:

    Screw all your logistic analysis and formalities.

    Yeah. Great idea.


    Quote Comment
  30. 130
    Day 25 – Make My Brain Better – Decision Making with the Correct Information on The Japan Fukushima Nuclear Plant | The Vaca Gourmet Says:

    [...] So I decided to do a little investigation to see how real this threat is.   IT’S NOT REAL.   I enjoy reading articles written by scientists who understand research and understand how people may draw erroneous conclusions.   To draw your own conclusions on this and to feel safe again consuming products raised on the West Coast of the US – check out this report on the Bad Science called Shameful “Study” Claims Fukushima Radiation Affected US Babies. [...]


    Quote Comment
  31. 131
    dan Says:

    Make a commitment to the fuel rods that are going to have to be taking care of a thousands of years. Iodine 131 is a problem but its not the big ones there are other isotopes that are out there that are coming from Fukushima that are far more hurtful to us and the environment.

            Chris said:

    “NOBODY here’s going to read anymore bogus links from you”. James does that inlcude updated link to Mangano’s newer work addressing certain concerns ? Like the one he sent me in that email I posted that your probably never read? http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf

    Did you read that pdf ?

    From what I’ve seen from you commenting on other sites, you believe nuclear energy saves lives. Well, it’s a fallacy that solar and wind and hydro, etc. need coal as a backup, therefore solar and wind would save EVEN MORE LIVES. Especially since its not prone to Fukishima like disasters.

    Jacobson’s article was probably not as in depth as it could have been, but it highlighted a few interesting facts. It also referred to other studies that have proven similar assertions like that of Vasilis Fthenakis of Brookhaven National Laboratory, Tim Lipman of the University of California, Berkeley, University of Delaware (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210133507.htm – “The authors developed a computer model to consider 28 billion combinations of renewable energy sources and storage mechanisms, each tested over four years of historical hourly weather data and electricity demands.”

    Are they all also mistaken???

    Eliminating “Existing subsidies for fossil energy, such as tax benefits for exploration and extraction…”, means solar and wind will be able to compete even more as per Jacobson.

    “Today the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as global population and living standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S. The mix of sources is similar to today’s, heavily dependent on fossil fuels. If, however, the planet were powered entirely by WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combustion, an intriguing savings would occur. Global power demand would be only 11.5 TW, and U.S. demand would be 1.8 TW. That decline occurs because, in most cases, electrification is a more efficient way to use energy. For example, only 17 to 20 percent of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle (the rest is wasted as heat), whereas 75 to 86 percent of the electricity delivered to an electric vehicle goes into motion.

    “Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS sources could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. Solar, alone, offers 6,500 TW. Of course, wind and sun out in the open seas, over high mountains and across protected regions would not be available. If we subtract these and low-wind areas not likely to be developed, we are still left with 40 to 85 TW for wind and 580 TW for solar, each far beyond future human demand. Yet currently we generate only 0.02 TW of wind power and 0.008 TW of solar. These sources hold an incredible amount of untapped potential.” – Jacobson.

    And DV82XL, yes, nuclear energy has “proven its worth” to the thousands of sick and dead it has effected – not as much as coal, but far more than wind, or solar.

    I was told in a previous comment that the current grid power is only expensive because of the renewable component of it, so we can’t compare it to home based solar. The tiny renewable components listed above is proof of the stupidity of this comment.

    James, did you read the new Mangano pdf ?


    Quote Comment
  32. 132
    dan Says:

    Humanity has shown in the past it there is no way that they could keep a commitment for all the fuel rods that are going to be around for thousands of years. And all the way here on this site is iodine 131 iodine 131. What about all the real bad radiation that have half life 7 30 years and 1500 years.


    Quote Comment
  33. 133
    Anon Says:

            dan said:

    Humanity has shown in the past it there is no way that they could keep a commitment for all the fuel rods that are going to be around for thousands of years. And all the way here on this site is iodine 131 iodine 131. What about all the real bad radiation that have half life 7 30 years and 1500 years.

    What about the waste from solar panel production which just so happen to be somewhat worse than nuclear waste?

    Not to mention that fact that with the exception of small off the grid homes no one has been able to make solar or wind work without fossil fuel backup so if we say “solar not nuclear” we may end up with the kind of solar produced from long dead animals.


    Quote Comment
  34. 134
    Ted Stewart Says:

    Since Mangano came up again, I wanted to remind everybody that he’s not a legitimate source. If his later works appears accurate, it merely demonstrates that he’s getting better at pulling the wool over the eyes of the gullible.

    This is dated, but gets across the point well: http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-stops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/

    Here is the 2012 tax records for his non-profit: http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/133/133781719/133781719_201204_990EZ.pdf

    He, once again, pockets the majority of the money donated to the organization. He’s a professional fearmonger, and you will never get clean water from that poisoned a well.


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string c7RFyB to the field below:

*

Protected by WP Anti Spam