[ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study
Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)
Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us
Mon Jul 2 13:34:51 CDT 2007
I think "guess" would imply some uncertainty on their part. I think
"made up" is more likely - eliminates uncertainty.
Regards, Jim
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of edmond0033
>Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:40 PM
>To: stewart farber; Otto Raabe; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study
>
>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/
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
>
>
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list