[ RadSafe ] Sternglass => Mangano scaremongering => was: RE: Sci. Am. about Fukushima and US Pacific NW infant mortality
C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Mon Jun 27 15:23:29 CDT 2011
As far as the infant mortality at the time of the global fallout 1959-63 is concerned, Sterngalss was found to be correct by later research. See:
Whyte,R.K (1992) `First Day Neonatal Mortality since 1935: A Re-examination of the Cross Hypothesis, British Medical Journal, 304: 343-6.
Whyte found the same excess in infant mortality over the global fallout peiod.
I studied infant mortality from congenital heart disease in England and Wales 1955-70 and showed that there was a highly statistically significant correlation
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of stewart farber
Sent: Mon 27/06/2011 19:16
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sternglass => Mangano scaremongering => was: RE: Sci. Am. about Fukushima and US Pacific NW infant mortality
The article cited is stated as being from the Editors of Sci. America. It is
clear that Mangano, the lead author of the paper claiming elevated infant
mortality, learned how to play the game of manipulating random fluctuations
in data, from his mentor Ernest Sternglass who had been intimately
involved for many years with the group that Mangano now apparently leads.
The technique used is simple and was that employed by Sternglass starting in
the 1960s. Take a window of time and move it over some plot of infant
mortality or another health detriment during sequential time windows in a
carefully selected area. Use only time periods and towns that fit your
group of small cities only.
Similarly, if the cities or small towns near a power plant are chosen
carefully one is certain to find some period before an event [an accident
like Fukushima] or start-up or shut-down of a nuclear power plant where the
statistic being looked at either goes up after plant startup or some
accident, or down vs. plant shutdown. Mangano and Sternglass have engaged
in the same nonsense in claiming that cancer or infant mortality went down
after a power plant shuts down even for short periods of time.
The National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council's Nov. 1972
report: "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation", rebuked Sternglass, using the same techniques he has passed
along to Mangano. Any comments referencing Sternglass could be considered
applicable to Mangano,
In the NAS review of "Infant Mortality and Ionizing Radiation" it is stated:
"The evidence assembled by Sternglass has been critically reviewed by Linop
and Rotblat [Ref. 5] and by Tomkins and Brown [Ref. 6]. It is clear that the
correlations presented in support of the hypothesis depend on arbitrary
selection of data supporting the hypothesis and the ignoring of those that
do not. In several regards, the data used by Sternglass appear to be in
Ref. 5- Lindop, P.J, and Rotblat, J. Strontium-90 and infant mortality.
Nature 224:1257-1260, 1969
Tomkins, E., and Brown, M.I. Evaluation of a possible causal relationship
between fallout deposition of Sr-90 and Infant and Fetal Mortality Trends.
DBE 69-2, Clearinghouse for Federal and Scientific Technical Information.
Springfield, VA 22151. Oct. 1969
Beside the NAS, Sternglass and his data manipulation techniques [now
employed by Mangano] have also been uniformly rebuked by the USPHS,
numerous State Public Health Agencies, and many professional societies.
However, the second generation propagandists, like [fill in the
blanks..........] now manipulating data continue their deceptive practices
because they apparently enjoy the psychic strokes they receive from a
generally lazy and innumerate media, and from so many in the general public
who believe their clever distortion of facts.
The 1972 NAS report mentioned above reviewed 22 papers by Sternglass from
1963 - 1971. Trying to critically review the distorted claims by
anti-nuclear activists like a Sternglass, Mangano, or Busby is like trying
to play "whack a mole" as has been said.
One paper by Sternglass the NAS reviewed was titled "Epidemiological Study
of Health Effects Associated with Radiation Discharges from Nuclear
Facilities". Little know factoid about Sternglass. It's quite humorous that
Sternglass for many years was the RSO for the University of Pittsburg and
its associated Hospitals. I once saw a summary in some routine report
authored by Sternglass of the total amount of radioactivity that the Univ.
of Pittsburg discharged while he was RSO overseeing Pitt's radiological
The total Ci of I-131, and other radionuclide discharges supervised by
Sternglass for one University and Hospital exceeded by many orders of
magnitude that of the I-131 discharges from any operating nuclear plant I
was involved at the time in reviewing and reporting the environmental
radiological program data for 3 nuclear plants. I recall that Maine Yankee
NPP [an 800 MW[e] nuclear plant that began operation in 1972] had an annual
Tech Spec airborne discharge limit of 50 milli-Curies [1.8 billion Bq].
Many, many thousands of patients in US Hospitals undergo thyroid ablations
each year routinely receiving 30 to 100 mCi [1.1-3.7 billion BQ] EACH of
I-131 in a single slug.
A single medical patient receiving 100 mCi [3.7 billion Bq] of I-131 would
excrete more I-131 via their breath, sweat, urine, and feces than the annual
release limit for airborne I-131 releases from a $1 billion 1,000 MW[e]
electric nuclear generation station.
Strange that Mangano and others like him now try to claim that a few Bq/kg
or minute levels of I-131 per m^3 of are capable of causing significant
health effects when levels far, far higher during the peak periods of
fallout from open air nuclear testing had no adverse health effects.
Stewart Farber, MSPH
Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
Bridgeport, CT 06606
email: SAFarber at optonline.net
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:57 PM
To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sci. Am. about Fukushima and US Pacific NW infant
I can't tell if this is from Sci. Am. or if it's on SA's
blog. Whatever the case, it may be worth reading.
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:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe