[ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study

Mon Jul 2 11:39:38 CDT 2007

I have asked this question before and those like Mangano.  They never say 
what was the amount (grams) of sample that they analyzed or what was the 
methodology.  Maybe they just guessed at the final numbers.

Ed Baratta
edmond0033 at comcast,net
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "stewart farber" <radproject at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Otto Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study

> I've commented before that Mangano is a 2nd generation Sternglass 
> wannabe. The importance of Mangano learning his 'craft' over  the past 
> five or so years at Sternglass' elbow [up until recently Sternglass was 
> still working with Mangano and the Tooth Fairy Project --I'm not sure of 
> the current connection, if any,  between Sternglass and Mangano] is that 
> the National Academy of Sciences  and the Health Physics Society and other 
> professional societies around 1980 in one of the BEIR [Biological Effects 
> of Ionizing Radiation] Consensus Reports pointed out that Sternglass was 
> guilty in all of his supposed studies and claims of only selecting data 
> which supported any specific hypothesis he suggested, and ignoring data 
> which did not. This is not the way a scientist approaches testing a 
> hypothesis and shows the person behaving in such a manner is a 
> propagandist -- not a responsible scientist.
>
> I recall seeing a good paper by Andy Hull, published in some IAEA 
> publication back in the late 1970s after Andy's presentation at an 
> international meeting sponsored by the UN.  Andy Hull of Brookhaven 
> National Lab gave examples of how for any given nuclear plant selected for 
> a Sternglass "study" to show a supposed health detriment, Sternglass would 
> move a window [a slice or duration] of time along for that specific 
> reactor until he found a time when some cancer rate went up for that brief 
> period.
>
> Sternglass would then take his arbitrary slice of time and move it along 
> for the given plant until some radioactive release was elevated at the 
> particular reactor and then claim that the increase in cancer rate [in a 
> small population of people based on a few cases in total] in that  brief 
> interval of time caused the "cancer increase".   Dose did not matter. 
> Induction period did not matter. Whether cancer rates went down for some 
> equivalent intervals of time when plant releases went up did not matter. 
> The point [and beauty of this antinuke approach] is a real increase in 
> cancer rate over some meaningful period of time [a longer duration at a 
> given reactor] isn't even necessary!!
>
> It is only necessary that some increase in detriment occur over a brief 
> interval of time, even when the cancer rate when averaged out over a 
> longer period of time shows no increase around the given reactor. Elegant 
> in its simplicity and in its deceipt.
>
> Sometimes the effect claimed by the antinuke can be immediate. Mangano and 
> some of his "associates" have made some absurd claims that a shutdown in a 
> given reactor was followed by an immediate reduction in cancer rates 
> around a given reactor.
>
> Mangano will someday be as debunked by professional organizations as 
> Sternglass was 30 years ago. However, the criticism by these professional 
> organizations will never get the press that the original claims received, 
> because professional societies are not very good at manipulating the 
> public, the media, or legislators.
>
> Unfortunately, as Mark Twain observed:
>
> A lie can race its way around the world while truth is still tying its 
> shoes.
>
> The deceptions by Mangano, and others connected with the Tooth Fairy 
> Project, could be easily debunked by any scientist with a basic 
> understanding of epidemiology, environmental radiation from nuclear 
> plants, and radiation bioeffects willing to spend enough time to make the 
> effort. Unfortunately, nuclear organizations and government agencies do 
> not generally commit even the minimal resources needed to allow a 
> credible, capable scientist to do the necessary technical analysis of the 
> false claims.
>
> After completing any such analysis debunking their critics, these same 
> nuclear industry organizations would likely be unable, or unwilling, to 
> act to get their analysis before the public for fear of actively joining 
> in a fight that is in the interests of the organization sponsoring the 
> vital critique.  Unfortunate, and ultimately part of the reason the 
> nuclear power industry will likely never get as far as they hope with many 
> of their future nuclear power plant projects. A regrettable situation and 
> ultimately tragic considering the money wasted on delayed and dead ended 
> projects, and the effects of the alternate forms of power generation with 
> great environmental impacts which will be pursued, or the effects of not 
> having enough energy when and where it is needed.
>
> Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
> Consulting Scientist
> Farber Technical Services
> [203] 441-8433 [office]
> email: radproject at sbcglobal.net
>
> ===================================
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Otto Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>
> To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 9:51 PM
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study
>
>
>> At 07:04 PM 6/25/2007, Steven Dapra wrote:
>>>         Our Tooth Fairy Project (TFP) friend Joseph Mangano is the 
>>> author of the study alleging higher cancer rates in the counties around 
>>> the Vogtle reactor.
>> *******************************
>> Remember, the standard procedure is to find a reactor for which some 
>> cancer rates have gone up and claim that the reactor was responsible. Now 
>> we can assume that for the 103 power reactors in the U.S. that at least a 
>> few are in areas where cancer rates have gone up, maybe even 
>> significantly, for unknown reasons that have no relation to any reactor. 
>> But, then you selectively publish about this one or more reactors and 
>> ignore all those for which local cancer rates went down! Them you imply 
>> that all resactor causes cancer!
>>
>> This doesn't take much effort or time. All you need is some eager young 
>> volunteers who believe that reactors are evil, and have them search the 
>> available cancer records around all 103 reactors until you find one or 
>> more that show cancer rate increases, then you use the usual manuscript 
>> template with these data, and you have a new publication that you can 
>> send to a reporter looking for a story.
>>
>> Otto
>>
>> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
>> Center for Health & the Environment
>> University of California
>> One Shields Avenue
>> Davis, CA 95616
>> E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
>> Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
>> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 