[ RadSafe ] Sternglass => Mangano scaremongering =>was:RE:Sci.Am. about Fukushima and US Pacific NW infant mortality

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Mon Jul 11 19:10:48 CDT 2011

July 10

         The graph is for Cs-137.  Your reply says Sr-90, and your 
entire line of argumentation in your earlier postings is about Sr-90 
and not about Cs-137.  In fact, you invoke two mouse studies on Sr-90 
by Luning, et al. and then you write, "The baby mice died after the 
Sr90 but not the Cs137."

Steven Dapra

At 11:28 AM 7/10/2011, you wrote:
>The radsafe moderator has said I didnt answer this question of 
>yours. Here is the answer. Prior to 1945 the most common cause of 
>death  of infants in England and Wales would have been infections/ 
>pneumonia. After 1945 the rates fell sharply but the rate of fall 
>was arrested when the fallout began. In those areas where the 
>rainfall and fallout was high there was actually an increase which 
>fell back again when the Sr-90 stopped appearing in the milk. The 
>effects were greatest in the neonatal period 0-1month and there was 
>also an effect on stillbirth. Is that an answer?
>I dont understand historical perspective point.  I attach the graph 
>from my 1995 book.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Fri 08/07/2011 02:39
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Sternglass => Mangano scaremongering 
>=>was:RE:Sci.Am. about Fukushima and US Pacific NW infant mortality
>July 7
>          (See my interspersed comments marked as "SD")
>Steven Dapra
>At 10:42 AM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
> >The paper by Whyte shows increases in infant mortality , neonatal
> >mortality and stillbirths in the USA and also in England and Wales
> >over a long period of time.
> >
> >Whyte,R.K (1992) `First Day Neonatal Mortality since 1935: A
> >Re-examination of the Cross Hypothesis', British Medical Journal, 
> 304: 343-6.
> >
> >This is a longer period than was considered by Ernest Sternglass,
> >who she cites in her paper. Sternglass was writing in 1971.
>          Whyte cited Sternglass.  Sternglass did not write in
>1971.  The Proceedings were held in 1969, and Whyte so states in her
>citation (no. 32).  The citation was to the "Proceedings of the ninth
>annual Hanford biology symposium at Richland Washington, May 5-8,
>1969."  Whyte gives the germane page numbers as pp. 693-717.  These
>Proceedings appear to be available at the local university library,
>and I will make a concerted effort to examine them over the weekend
>and report to RADSAFE on whatever I find.
>          You may also want to try this:
>Evidence for Low-Level Radiation Effects on the Human Embryo and
>Fetus, in Radiation Biology of the Fetal and Juvenile Mammal,
>Proceedings of the 9th Annual Hanford Biology Symposium, May 5-8,
>1969, pp. 681-692, AEC Symposium Vol. 16, Ed. by M.R. Sikov and D.D.
>Mahlum, Division of Technical Information U.S.AEC, 1969 (.CONF-690501).
>          Note the different page numbers.  This citation is near the
>bottom of the page at
><http://www.radiation.org/reading/ejsternglasspubs.html>. (SD)
> >What she shows in her paper is that there were increases in all
> >these indicators over the period of the fallout 1959-63, not just in
> >USA but also in England and Wales. Dapra's explanation that it was
> >something about blacks in New York was n[ . . . ] [edited, so my
> >posting will go through --- SD] as it also happened in England and Wales.
>          This was *not* my explanation.  I was quoting from a letter
>to the editor of the British Medical Journal, and I gave the
>citation.  It is:  Sepkowitz, S. (Letter to the editor); British
>Medical Journal, 304: 776; March 21, 1992.  (SD)
> >There is no need for any other reference apart from Whyte: the
> >graphs are there to see and her conclusions also.
>          I included the other references for the benefit of parties
>who may have wanted to know about the ensuing discussion of Whyte's
>paper.  (SD)
> >Incidentally, the fallout was highest in Wales because of the high
> >rainfall the Sr90 was 3 times higher and was measured by the
> >Agricultural Research Council. In Wakes the infant mortality was a
> >sharp peak. I obtained all the causes of death from the Registrar
> >General for England and Wales in 1994 to see what they died of. The
> >most common cause was congenital heart defects.
>          What was the most common cause of death for the 20 y before
>1945, and the 20 y after Cross published his 1973 paper on first day
>mortality in England, Wales, and the United States?  (Citation to
>Cross is "Cost of preventing retrolental fibroplasia?", Lancet 1978,
>ii:954-6.)  We could use some historical perspective on this.  (SD)
> >The trend followed the Sr90 in milk exactly. Sr 90 was also examined
> >in mice by Luning and Frolen in Sweden:
> >
> >Luning K.G, Frolen, H., Nelson, A and Roennbaeck, C. (1963),
> >'Genetic effects of Strontium-90 on immature germ cells in mice.'
> >Nature No 4980 199: 303-4
> >Luning, K. G., Frolen, H., Nelson, A., and Ronnback, C. (1963),
> >`Genetic Effects of Strontium-90 Injected into Male Mice', Nature,
> >No 4864 197: 304-5.
> >
> >They compared it with Cs-137. The baby mice died after the Sr90 but
> >not the Cs137. Smirnova and Lyaginskaya in 1969 did the same
> >experiment in rats (inject father, unexposed mother) and the dead
> >babies had heart defects.
> >
> >Smirnova, E. I. and Lyaginska, A. M. (1969), `Heart Development of
> >Sr-90 Injured Rats', in Y. I. Moskalev and Y. I. Izd (eds.),
> >Radioaktiv Izotopy Organizs (Moscow: Medizina), 348.
> >
> >I wrote all this up in my 1995 book Wings of Death.
> >
> >Busby, C. C. (1995), Wings of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human
> >Health  (Aberystwyth: Green Audit)
> >
> >I will get round to publishing it sometime.
> >
> >Chris

More information about the RadSafe mailing list